DUANE ADAMS, 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.
The court affirmed denial of seven ineffective assistance of counsel claims but reversed and remanded the eighth claim regarding counsel's alleged misadvice about the defendant's lowest permissible sentence.
A trial court must address all cognizable claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in a Rule 3.850 motion, and if a claim is not conclusively refuted by the record, the court must either attach refuting portions of the record or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court must address all parts of a cognizable ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised in a Rule 3.850 motion, and if the claim is not conclusively refuted b…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams filed a Rule 3.850 motion raising eight grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, including a claim that his defense counsel misadvised him …
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 Cognizable Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant filed a facially sufficient motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 arguing eight grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm denial of the appellant’s first seven claims without further comment. However, for the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand the denial of ground eight.
In ground eight of the appellant’s motion, the appellant made two different claims. The appellant claimed that his scoresheet was incorrect and that defense counsel misadvised him that he was pleading to his lowest permissible sentence of 84 months, when his scoresheet revealed a lowest permissible sentence of 58.50 months. In its order denying the appellant’s postconviction motion, the trial court addressed the first part of appellant’s *1089claim regarding the incorrect scoresheet, but failed to address the second part of the appellant’s claim regarding his counsel’s misadvice. Because the appellant stated a cognizable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, see Skidmore v. State, 688 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and that claim is not conclusively refuted by the record on appeal, we reverse that part of the order denying this claim and remand to the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the appellant’s claim, or, in the alternative, to hold an evidentiary hearing at which the appellant may prove his allegations.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BENTON, C.J., WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., concur.