MELVIN GAY, 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.
Melvin Gay appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion containing sixteen claims for relief. The court affirmed most claims but reversed the summary denial of claims five, six, and ten due to inadequate record support and failure to properly consider a potential Brady violation claim.
The court reversed the summary denial of claims five and six because the postconviction court's supporting attachments were not filed in the circuit court record, making it impossible to conclusively determine whether they refuted Gay's claims. The court reversed claim ten's denial as to the Brady violation allegation because such claims are cognizable in Rule 3.850 motions, though the evidentiary error claim was properly denied as an issue that should have been raised on direct appeal.
[1] A claim that the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. …
[2] Evidentiary issues that could have been raised on direct appeal are generally barred in a motion for postconviction relief.
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“The order denying relief lists the applicable portion of the transcript as one of the attachments to the order, but the attachments were apparently not filed in the circuit court. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine whether the attachments conclusively refute Gay's claim.”
Establishes that summary denials relying on unrecorded attachments cannot be sustained on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGay filed a pro se postconviction motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 with sixteen claims for relief. The postconviction court…
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 Evidentiary Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Melvin Gay seeks review of the order denying his motion for postconviction relief, which was filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Gay’s pro se motion and amendment contained a total of sixteen claims for relief. We affirm the denial of claims one through four, seven through nine, and eleven through sixteen without comment. We reverse the summary denial of claims five, six, and ten.
In claim five, Gay asserted that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on double jeopardy grounds when the State was allowed to reopen its case to address additional elements of the crime charged. In claim six, Gay asserted that the trial court violated the protections against double jeopardy for the same reason. The postconviction court summarily denied relief on these claims based on its finding that the State was not permitted to reopen its case to present additional evidence. The order denying relief lists the applicable portion of the transcript as one of the attachments to the order, but the attachments were apparently not filed in the circuit court. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine whether the attachments conclusively refute Gay’s claim. Therefore, we must reverse the denial of the claim. If the postconviction court summarily denies the claim again on remand, it should ensure that the attachments get filed in the record.
In claim ten, Gay asserted that the trial court erred in admitting suggestive identification evidence and that the State withheld an audiotape that would have en sured his acquittal. The postconviction court summarily denied relief on these claims based on its finding that the claims raised evidentiary issues that should have been raised on direct appeal. Gay’s first allegation, that the trial court erred in admitting suggestive identification evidence, is certainly an evidentiary issue that should have been raised on direct appeal. See Henderson v. Dugger, 522 So. 2d 835, 836 n. * (Fla.1988) (holding that argument that evidence was erroneously admitted was barred in postconviction motion because it could have been raised on direct appeal).
Gay’s second allegation, however, did not involve an evidentiary ruling at trial but was an allegation of a Brady1 violation by the State. Such an allegation is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. Hempstead v. State, 980 So. 2d 1254, 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Accordingly, we reverse the postconviction court’s summary denial of this claim with directions for it to reconsider the claim on remand. If the court determines that the claim is facially insufficient, it should strike the claim with leave for Gay to amend his motion within a reasonable period of time. See Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007). If the court determines that the claim is facially sufficient, the court should either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record refuting the claim.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
WHATLEY and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur. . Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schultheis v. State, 12 So. 3d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…not attach any record excerpts supporting the denial of relief. With respect to the second, fifth, seventh, ninth, and tenth claims in appellant’s motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, this omission requires reversal. See Gay v. State, 995 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Miller v. State, 905 So. 2d 981, 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). We remand the order denying relief as to these claims and direct the postconviction court to either attach supportive record excerpts or conduct an evidentiary hearing…
-
Felder v. State, 198 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ations because the record did not conclusively demonstrate that the defendant was not entitled to relief on those claims). In addition, this court has explicitly recognized that a Brady violation “is cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion.” Gay v. State, 995 So. 2d 541, 543 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Hempstead v. State, 980 So. 2d 1254, 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)). More directly to the point, we disagree with the postconviction court’s conclusion that Mr. Felder’s claim is conclusively refuted by defense counsel’s f…
Authorities Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Henderson v. Dugger, 522 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1988)
- Hempstead v. State, 980 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)