MICHAEL RAY BARNES, 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.
Michael Ray Barnes appealed the denial of his postconviction motion raising six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the denial of five claims but reversed and remanded claim five, which alleged counsel failed to request a Richardson hearing after discovering a discovery violation that deprived Barnes of the opportunity to impeach a child witness.
The court affirmed the denial of claims one through four and six, but reversed and remanded claim five because it was facially sufficient, the record on appeal did not refute it, and the State's response failed to address counsel's alleged deficient performance or prejudice to Barnes' case.
[1] A postconviction court may incorporate the State's response to a motion for postconviction relief if the State provides the necessary record documents to refute the claim…
[2] A postconviction court must either state its rationale or attach record documents refuting each claim when summarily denying a motion for postconviction relief.
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“When a court summarily denies a rule 3.850 motion, it must "either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion."”
Establishes the standard for summary denial of postconviction motions and what courts must do to comply with appellate requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn September 2006, Barnes was convicted by jury of one count of capital sexual battery and two counts of battery, and was sentenced to life in prison …
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 Summary Denial Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Ray Barnes challenges the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(b) in which he raised six claims. We affirm the postconviction court’s order as to all claims except claim five, which we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In September 2006, Barnes was found guilty by a jury of one count of capital sexual battery and two counts of battery. He was sentenced to life in prison on the sexual battery conviction and to time served on the two battery convictions. Barnes filed his rule 3.850(b) motion on May 18, 2009, raising six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On June 9, 2009, the postconviction court ordered the State to respond. After reviewing the State’s response and its attached record documents, the court summarily denied Barnes’ motion.
Order Adopting and Incorporating State’s Response
In denying Barnes’ motion, the postconviction court “adopted and incorporated” the State’s response without making specific findings or attaching record documents to its order. When a court summarily denies a rule 3.850 motion, it must “either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.” Anderson v. State, 627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993). However, the rules of criminal and appellate procedure do not preclude a court from incorporating a re*220sponse from the State if the State has provided the necessary record documents. Langdon v. State, 947 So.2d 460, 461 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); cf. Burnett v. State, 983 So.2d 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reversing the summary denial because neither the trial court’s order nor the State’s incorporated response appended any record); Dieudonne v. State, 993 So.2d 640, 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (concluding that if the trial court, as its basis for a rule 3.850 denial, incorporates the State’s response, which cites to but does not attach necessary record documents that are not otherwise included in the record on appeal, the trial court’s order must be reversed and remanded). Because the requisite record documents in this case are attached to the State’s response and are included in our record on appeal, we do not find it necessary to reverse the postconviction court’s order on the basis of wholesale incorporation of the State’s response. However, we reiterate that the better practice is for the court to either attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim or to discuss its rationale in its order.
Failure to Request a Richardson Hearing
Barnes’ fifth claim raises ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to request a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971), after learning of an alleged discovery violation by the State that ultimately deprived Barnes of an opportunity to present testimony questioning the veracity of the child witness. This claim is facially sufficient, the record on appeal does not refute the claim, and the State’s response wholly fails to address defense counsel’s alleged deficient performance or whether Barnes’ case was prejudiced by counsel’s inaction. We therefore reverse the denial of claim five and remand the case for further proceedings. See Collins v. State, 671 So.2d 827, 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WHATLEY and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abel Puente v. State, 164 So. 3d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…incorporating the State’s response — although permissible under the rules — is discouraged. See, e.g., Lawrenson v. State, 143 So. 3d 1048, 1048 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Roberts v. State, 113 So. 3d 868, 869 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Barnes v. State, 38 So. 3d 218, 219-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Affirmed. CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ, Concur.…
-
Roberts v. State, 113 So. 3d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…07). And if the court summarily denies a facially sufficient claim based on the record, it must either state its rationale in its order or attach those parts of the record that conclusively refute each of the defendant’s claims. See Barnes v. State, 38 So. 3d 218, 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Holley v. State, 67 So. 3d 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Here, the postconviction court did neither. We recognize that the rules of criminal procedure do not preclude a post-conviction court’s order from simply adopting and inco…
-
Smith v. State, 39 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…also was error to deny his claim without an evidentiary hearing because it is not refuted by the record. In summarily denying a postconviction motion, a court may adopt the response and record attachments provided by the State. See Barnes v. State, 38 So. 3d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). However, the record attachments provided by the State and adopted by the postcon-viction court here do not refute Smith’s claim. The issue before the postconviction court was whether the record attachments provided by the State…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Anderson v. State, 627 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1993)
- Langdon v. State, 947 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Collins v. State, 671 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Heinrich Buettner v. Est. OF Luise Buettner, 993 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)