VINCENT LEFTWICH, 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.
Vincent Leftwich appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion challenging his convictions for burglary and dealing in stolen property. The appellate court affirmed denial of most claims but reversed as to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding failure to call a potential witness, finding it facially sufficient.
The court held that Leftwich's ineffective assistance claim was facially sufficient because his motion complied with all required elements: identifying the witness, describing the substance of the testimony, explaining how the omission prejudiced the outcome, and establishing the witness's availability for trial.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness is facially sufficient if it identifies the witness, states th…
[2] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness must demonstrate that the witness's testimony could have cast doubt on the defendant'…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 state a facially sufficient claim on this ground, the movant must allege the identity of the potential witness, the substance of the witness's testimony, an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the outcome of the case, and a representation that the witness was available for trial.”
Establishes the four-element test for facial sufficiency of ineffective assistance claims based on failure to call a witness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeftwich was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and dealing in stolen property. He filed a Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of couns…
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 Pursuant To Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he challenges his convictions for burglary of a dwelling and dealing in stolen property. We affirm the denial of all but one of the appellant’s claims. Because the appellant’s first claim is facially sufficient, we reverse as to that claim.
In his first ground for relief, the appellant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a potential witness. In order to state a facially sufficient claim on this ground, the movant must allege the identity of the potential witness, the substance of the witness’s testimony, an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the outcome of the case, and a representation that the witness was available for trial. McCray v. State, 933 So. 2d 1226, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579, 583-84 (Fla.2004). The appellant’s motion com plies with these requirements. The appellant states the name of the witness and his potential testimony, which allegedly would have been that the witness was the actual perpetrator. The appellant also contends that the witness was in the appellant’s company at the time of the alleged offense. The appellant explains that the witness may have been able to cast doubt on the appellant’s guilt and that the witness’s testimony would have weighed on the question of whether the state’s eyewitnesses were reliable. In addition, the appellant alleges that he advised counsel to call the witness and that the witness was present and an anticipated witness at trial. The appellant has stated a facially sufficient claim for relief.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of this claim and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute this claim.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spellers v. State, 993 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…the identity of the potential witness, the substance of the witness’ testimony, an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the outcome of the case, and a representation that the witness was available for trial. Leftwich v. State, 954 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Here, Spellers’ motion alleged all of these elements. The fact that the jury was instructed to consider Spellers’ claim of self-defense does not necessarily mean that Spellers was not prejudiced by his attorney’s failure to pre…
-
Corbett v. State, 267 So. 3d 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…of the potential witness, the substance of the witness’s testimony, an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the outcome of the case, and 6 a representation that the witness was available for trial.” Leftwich v. State, 954 So. 2d 714, 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Although he was given the opportunity to amend this claim, Corbett failed to allege that any of these witnesses would have been available for trial. Thus, to the extent that Corbett sought to allege that counsel…
-
Jones v. State, 226 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…estimony, an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the outcome of the case, and a representation that the witness was available for trial.” Spellers v. State, 993 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Leftwich v. State, 954 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)). Jones alleged that Ferebee would have testified that law enforcement communicated to him that they also arrested Jones’s mother, resulting in Jones’s cooperation in exchange for the possibility of her immunity. In its order de…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- McCRAY v. State, 933 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)