LENTON MCCRAY, 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.
Lenton McCray appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion challenging his conviction for aggravated battery. The court affirms the denial of most claims but reverses and remands regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failing to investigate two witnesses, finding he stated a facially sufficient claim but failed to allege witness availability.
McCray stated a facially sufficient ineffective assistance claim under the four-part test from Nelson v. State, but the claim was deficient because he failed to allege the witnesses were available to testify. The case is reversed and remanded to allow McCray leave to amend his motion.
[1] A facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate or call a witness requires alleging the witness's identity, the substance of t…
[2] A defendant must allege that a witness would have been available to testify to state a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call…
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“In order to allege a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call or interview a witness, Appellant must state: (1) the identity of the witness; (2) the substance of the witness's testimony; (3) an explanation of how the omission of this testimony prejudiced the outcome of the case; and (4) that the witness was available to testify at trial.”
Establishes the four-part test for ineffective assistance claims based on failure to interview or call witnesses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCray was convicted of aggravated battery causing great bodily harm following a bench trial. He filed a Rule 3.850 motion alleging his counsel was in…
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 Record Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he challenges his conviction for aggravated battery causing great bodily harm. We affirm the denial of all but one of Appellant’s claims without further discussion.
In his fourth ground for relief, Appellant asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate two witnesses prior to his bench trial. In order to allege a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call or interview a witness, Appellant must state: (1) the identity of the witness; (2) the substance of the witness’s testimony; (3) an explanation of how the omission of this testimony prejudiced the outcome of the case; and (4) that the witness was available to testify at trial. Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579, 583-84 (Fla.2004).
Appellant stated the names of the witnesses and their potential testimony, which allegedly would have been that the victim in the case sustained her injuries prior to the altercation with Appellant. Further, Appellant contends that if the testimony had been presented, the trial court could have reasoned that he was only guilty of battery, as opposed to guilty of aggravated battery. Appellant has stated a,facially sufficient claim for relief,1 with the exception that he has failed to allege that the witnesses were available to testify. When a defendant fails to allege that a witness would have been available to testify, he should be granted leave to amend the motion within a specified time period. Nelson, 875 So. 2d at 583-84.
On remand, the trial court shall grant Appellant a reasonable period of time to file an amended motion. If Appellant fails to file an amended motion within this time period, then the denial may be with prejudice. If an amended motion is filed, the trial court shall either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach additional record evidence conclusively refuting Appellant’s claim. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ERVIN, HAWKES and THOMAS, JJ., concur. . Nothing in either the trial court's order or the attachments to it conclusively refutes this claim. The trial court attached portions of the victim's medical records with notes describing how, according to the victim, the injuries occurred. These documents are insufficient to refute Appellant’s claim that counsel should have called two witnesses who would have testified to a different version of events. The documents only demonstrate that the victim sustained injuries; they do not prove how or when those injuries were sustained.