DOUGLAS SMYTH, 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 held that a claim regarding counsel's failure to test hair evidence was not conclusively refuted by the record and required an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant appealed the denial of his post-conviction relief motion. One claim alleged counsel failed to test hair found in the victim's underwear, whi…
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 Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Douglas Smyth appeals an order summarily denying his multi-issue Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm the trial court’s denial of all of the claims except for one. In claim four, Smyth alleges that counsel failed to demand analysis of hair found in the victim’s underwear and such testing would have furthered Smyth’s claim of innocence as advanced at trial. This point of the motion was not specifically addressed either by the response filed in the trial court or the order denying relief.
Responding to this court, the state contends that the decision not to test the hairs in this case was strategic and allowed counsel to argue reasonable doubt based upon the state’s inadequate investigation. Thus, on the face of the record, the strategy is evident. This court has previously rejected a comparable argument that defense strategy was evident on the face of the record and remanded for an evidentia-ry hearing as to whether the claim represents a reasonable tactical decision. See O’Neal v. State, 54 So.3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
Accordingly, we reverse only the portion of the order discussed above, and remand this case to the trial court for an evidentia-ry hearing as to that claim or for the attachment of those portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim. We affirm as to the remaining claims.
MAY, C.J., WARNER and CHELIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cromarty v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 110 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…and the bank’s evidence was insufficient to establish that it held the note and was entitled to enforce the note at the time it filed suit. We agree with the borrowers’ argument as to standing and reverse. See Hall v. REO Asset Acquisitions, LLC, 84 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“While the note introduced had a blank endorsement and was sufficient to prove ownership by ap-pellee, who possessed the note, nothing in the record shows that the note was acquired prior to the filing of the complaint. The endo…
-
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for New Century Home Equity Loan Tr. Series 2005-C Asset Backed Pass Through Certificates v. Boglioli, 154 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ss’n, 142 So. 3d 983, 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Bristol v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 137 So. 3d 1130, 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc., 104 So. 3d 1274, 1276-78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Hall v. REO Asset Acquisitions, LLC, 84 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment under the “tipsy coachman” doctrine1 based on [*496] appellant’s failure to demonstrate it had standing to foreclose at the time it filed the complaint. Affirmed. CIKLIN, GERBER a…
-
Abdel (Darwish) Darwiche and Batoul (Darwish) Darwiche v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon, 185 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…t of the motion for summary judgment contain any sworn statement that the note was owned by the plaintiff on the date that the complaint was filed.” (emphasis added and- internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hall v. REO Asset Acquisitions, LLC, 84 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012))). ■ As to the assignment of mortgage, upon which the bank relied to establish its standing, we agree with Appellants that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the assignment of mortgage was sufficient to estab…
Authorities Cited
- O'Neal v. State, 54 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)