NORMAN K. BROWN, 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.
Norman Brown appealed the trial court's summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court affirmed the denial regarding two ineffective assistance claims but reversed and remanded regarding counsel's failure to investigate and call four specific witnesses, finding the trial court failed to adequately explain how the omitted testimony would not have affected the trial outcome.
The trial court's summary denial of the claim regarding the four witnesses was reversed because the trial court failed to attach record portions adequately explaining how the witnesses' proposed testimony would not have affected the trial outcome. When summarily denying relief for failure to call witnesses, the trial court must attach records conclusively showing the defendant is entitled to no relief.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and call witnesses is facially sufficient if the defendant states each witness's proposed testimon…
[2] When summarily denying relief for failure to call witnesses, a trial court must attach record portions explaining how the witness's testimony would not have affected the…
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“Appellant has alleged a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and call as witnesses Arthea Cherry, Laura Clayton, Walter Reeves, and Officer Ferrara because he stated each witness' proposed testimony, how the omission of this evidence prejudiced the outcome of his trial, and that these witness were willing and available to testify.”
Establishes the elements Brown must plead to state a sufficient ineffective assistance claim regarding failure to 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 intelligenceBrown filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds. Regarding four specific witnesses—Arthea Cherry, L…
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 Prejudice (In Ineffective Assistance Claims) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
We affirm without discussion Appellant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for interfering with his right to testify during trial and his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call Ava Wilson as a witness.
We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call four other witnesses. Appellant has alleged a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate and call as witnesses Arthea Cherry, Laura Clayton, Walter Reeves, and Officer Ferrara because he stated each witness’ proposed testimony, how the omission of this evidence prejudiced the outcome of his trial, and that these witness were willing and available to testify. See Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579, 583 (Fla.2004).
The trial court denied relief, finding that Appellant was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to call these witnesses, explaining that each would have presented impeachment evidence, at best, and their proposed testimony conflicted with Appellant’s defense theory.
The trial court either failed to attach any records showing how the witness’ proposed testimony would not affect the outcome of the trial or attached records which do not conclusively refute Appellant’s claim because they do not explain Appellant’s defense theory. When summarily denying relief regarding failure to call witnesses, a trial court should attach record portions explaining how a witness’ testimony would not have affected the outcome of the trial.
We find that its failure to do so here constitutes reversible error. See Brooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Accordingly, we reverse in part the trial court’s summary denial of Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to attach further records conclusively showing Appellant is entitled to no relief.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WOLF, DAVIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- Brooks v. State, 710 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)