JAMES E. OSBORNE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
James Osborne appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel for a burglary conviction. The appellate court affirmed most claims but reversed the summary denial regarding counsel's failure to investigate potential defense witnesses, finding the allegations stated a cognizable claim under controlling precedent.
The court held that Osborne's allegations of ineffective assistance regarding the failure to investigate and call defense witnesses satisfied the applicable standard and were sufficient to require an evidentiary hearing or record evidence conclusively refuting the claim, rather than summary denial. The claims regarding other grounds for post-conviction relief were affirmed as properly denied.
[1] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate potential defense witnesses must satisfy the standard set forth in Nelson v. …
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to investigate and present defense witnesses requires an evidentiary hearing unless the State can conclu…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellant's allegations satisfied Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004).”
Establishes that the ineffective assistance claims met the applicable legal standard for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOsborne was convicted of burglary for allegedly taking a television and VCR. He claimed counsel failed to investigate or call several witnesses: Jewsl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant James Osborne appeals a trial court order which summarily denied his motion for post conviction relief from his burglary conviction. We affirm the summary denial of appellant’s claims except for claim (c). In that claim, appellant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate potential defense witness.
First he claims that he failed to call Jewslay who was living in the apartment where the burglary occurred and who allegedly would have said that he sold appellant the television and VCR Osborne was charged with having taken. Also, appellant alleged that defense counsel should have investigated and presented another witness, Wisly Elidor, Sr., who would have said that he told Jewslay to leave his apartment where the burglary occurred, due to the burglary and Jewslay’s possible drug use. Presumably, this would have suggested that Jewslay, rather than appellant, took the television and VCR without permission.
Next, appellant argued that his counsel should have investigated Leon Osborne, who was ready, willing and able to testify that he was with appellant when appellant purchased the television and VCR, and that appellant purchased them from Jews-lay.
Finally, appellant alleged that he asked counsel to investigate the men who were with the State’s witness Coleman at the time Coleman confronted appellant with the television and VCR. He alleged that they would have provided impeachment of State witnesses to the extent that they said that appellant was seen coming out of the burglarized apartment with the television and VCR. Appellant’s allegations satisfied Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2004).
Neither the State response filed below, which only addressed the claim of failure to call Leon Osborne, nor the response filed in this Court adequately refutes this claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. To the extent the State has argued that defense counsel’s decision not to call these individuals was strategic or tactical, that would call for an evidentiary hearing. See e.g. Kiser v. State, 903 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); James v. State, 881 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Erlsten v. State, 842 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of this ground for either an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute this ground for relief. We affirm the summary denial as to the other claims in the motion for post-conviction relief.
STONE, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- James v. State, 881 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Antoine Henderson v. State, 842 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Gary v. Crosby, 842 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Kiser v. State, 903 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)