DARVIN FLOYD, 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.
Darvin Floyd appeals his conviction for attempted murder in the second degree, raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's failure to investigate witness testimony. The appellate court reverses and remands because the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing Floyd's specific claim about witness testimony.
The trial court's denial of the ineffective assistance of counsel motion is reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d) with respect to Floyd's specific claim about witness testimony.
[1] A trial court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying a motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.
[2] An appellate court cannot make factual findings when reviewing the denial of a motion for postconviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The trial court was required to set forth the findings and conclusions that showed why Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims. Absent any such findings, we cannot review the sufficiency of its ruling.”
Establishes the legal requirement that trial courts must make explicit findings and conclusions when denying postconviction relief motions, and the appellate standard of review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFloyd was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree. The trial court found that Floyd possessed and discharged a firearm that inflicted great…
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 Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
Darvin Floyd was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree. The trial court made a specific finding that Floyd possessed and discharged a firearm which had inflicted great bodily harm to the victim. Floyd filed a multi-point ineffective assistance of trial counsel motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court summarily denied some issues, and others were the subject of an evidentiary hearing. This appeal concerns Floyd’s sole claim that defense counsel failed to investigate witness testimony that the victim, after having identified Floyd as the shooter, was asking people the identity of the person who had shot him. Charles Roberts’ testimony at the evidentiary hearing supported that claim. The trial court denied Floyd’s motion, but did not specifically address this point.1
As we recently stated in Tyrell v. State, 107 So.3d 536, 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013):
*1172The standard of review of the denial of a motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing requires deference to the trial court’s factual findings. See Brancaccio v. State, 27 So.3d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). An appellate court is not empowered to make findings of fact. See Hunter v. State, 87 So.3d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The trial court was required to set forth the findings and conclusions that showed why Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims. Absent any such findings, we cannot review the sufficiency of its ruling.
As in Tyrell, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the lower court is directed to make the necessary findings and conclusions of law as required by the rule. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d)2; Jacobs v. State, 80 So.3d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Reversed and Remanded with instructions.
MAY, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hunter v. State, 87 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Simmons v. State, 87 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Brancaccio v. State, 27 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Tyrell v. State, 107 So. 3d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Jacobs v. State, 80 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)