DWAYNE A. DEBOSE, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed in part a trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, finding two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding failure to investigate medical evidence and call an eyewitness regarding excessive police force were facially sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
Two grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel—failure to investigate medical evidence of excessive police force and failure to call an eyewitness to testify about excessive police force—are facially sufficient and require an evidentiary hearing or record review on remand.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to investigate and present medical evidence of excessive police force is facially sufficient to survive summ…
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on failure to call an eyewitness to testify regarding excessive police force is facially sufficient to survive summary…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of offenses arising from an incident in which he alleged he was subjected to excessive police force by police.…
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 Facial Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant challenges a final order by which the trial court summarily denied his amended Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief raising seventeen grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Because we conclude that two of these grounds are facially sufficient, we reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
In his seventh ground for relief, the appellant alleged, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or present certain medical evidence at trial that would have supported his assertion that he was subjected to excessive police force during the incident giving rise to the offenses at hand. In his twelfth ground for relief, he alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a particular eyewitness to testify concerning this alleged excessive police force. We conclude that both claims are facially sufficient and reverse those portions of the order by which the trial court summarily denied them. We direct the trial court, on remand, to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting these claims or to convene an evidentiary hearing to address the merits of these claims. The order is otherwise affirmed:
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
ALLEN, PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.