GREGORY WALTER BOWDEN, II, 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 appellate court reversed and remanded a summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion because the trial court failed to address an ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding alleged opening of the door to inadmissible probation testimony.
A trial court must address all claims in a facially sufficient Rule 3.850 motion, and summary denial is improper when the record does not conclusively refute a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] On appeal from summary denial of a facially sufficient Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, the appellate court must reverse unless the record conclusively shows the defenda…
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 intelligenceAppellant Bowden appealed a summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion, claiming trial counsel acted ineffectively by opening the door to …
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 Strickland Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals an order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. In one of the claims the appellant argues that trial counsel acted ineffectively because he opened the door to testimony that the appellant was allegedly on probation in Georgia “for drugs” after the trial court, again allegedly, had ruled that the jury was not to hear such testimony. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The court’s order and attachments indicate that the court did not address this claim. In response to this court’s show cause order the state has conceded that the lower court should be required to address this claim. On appeal from a summary denial of a facially sufficient motion, this Court must reverse unless the postconviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2).
Because the record now before us indicates that the trial court failed to address this claim, we reverse the order as to this claim and remand for the trial court to rule on this matter and either provide record attachments that conclusively refute it, or provide the appellant an eviden-tiary hearing on this sole claim. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief on all remaining claims in the motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LEWIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradley v. State, 152 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ts otherwise detailed and exhaustive order. See Mays v. State, 89 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (remanding in part the denial of a rule 3.850 motion for further proceedings on an issue that was not addressed in the court’s order); Bowden v. State, 54 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (same). Contrary to the State’s position in its response to this Court’s order to show cause, the claim is sufficiently pleaded. Consequently, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court to address appellant’s claim of ine…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)