FREDDIE LAWRENCE, 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.
Freddie Lawrence appealed the denial of his postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging two grounds. The court reversed and remanded as to Ground 4 (ineffective assistance of counsel regarding plea negotiations) but affirmed the dismissal of Ground 11 (untimely challenge to jury instructions) as barred by the two-year filing limitation.
The court reversed as to Ground 4 because the record did not conclusively refute Lawrence's allegation, requiring an evidentiary hearing or record attachments conclusively showing he was entitled to no relief. The court affirmed the dismissal of Ground 11 because the claim was untimely under the two-year filing limitation in Rule 3.850(b) and no exceptions applied.
[1] A trial court must either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or hold an evidentiary hearing…
[2] Exhibits attached to a trial court's order denying post-conviction relief must conclusively refute the defendant's claims to justify summary denial.
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“a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief claim unless the motion and record conclusively show that he or she is entitled to no relief or where the claim is legally insufficient”
Establishes the standard for when a postconviction relief motion must receive an evidentiary hearing rather than summary denial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence filed a postconviction relief motion challenging his conviction on two grounds: Ground 4 alleged that trial counsel told him the night before…
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 Timeliness Of Postconviction Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Freddie Lawrence, appeals an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and challenges the denial of relief as to Grounds 4 and 11. We agree with the State’s concession that reversal is warranted as to Ground 4 given that the record attachments do not conclusively refute Appellant’s allegation that trial counsel told him the night before trial that she rejected the State’s plea offer because she was ready to proceed to trial. See Wainwright v. State, 896 So.2d 695, 698 (Fla.2004) (noting that a defendant is entitled to an evi-dentiary hearing on a postconviction relief claim unless the motion and record conclusively show that he or she is entitled to no relief or where the claim is legally insufficient). As such, we reverse the order as to Ground 4 and remand with instructions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing on the claim or attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim.
As for Ground 11, in which Appellant claimed that, pursuant to Montgomery v. State, 70 So.3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), the trial court committed fundamental error during his trial by giving an erroneous manslaughter by act jury instruction, we agree with the State’s contention that the claim was untimely and that none of the exceptions to the two-year time limitation in rule 3.850 are applicable to this claim. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(b) (providing for a two-year time limitation in which to file a postconviction claim); see also Surinach v. State, 110 So.3d 95, 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“Amended motions for postconviction relief are subject to the two-year time limit for filing rule 3.850 motions unless they merely enlarge an issue or issues raised in the original motion.”). To the extent that Appellant argues in this proceeding that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the erroneous jury instruction issue in his direct appeal, we dismissed Appellant’s habeas corpus petition raising that argument because it too was untimely. See Lawrence v. State, 92 So.3d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).1
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions.
LEWIS, C.J., BENTON and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Montgomery v. State, 70 So. 3d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Wainwright v. State, 896 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2004)
- Raphael G. Surinach v. State, 110 So. 3d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Lawrence v. State, 92 So. 3d 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)
- Flores v. State, 92 So. 3d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)