DAVID ALLEN LASSITER, 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 the trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the failure to subpoena exculpatory videos.
[1] A trial court errs in summarily denying a post-conviction relief claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel when the record does not conclusively refute the claim a…
[2] A defendant may demonstrate prejudice in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim if the withheld exculpatory evidence, if it existed, would have undermined the victim'…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of several felonies and sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to obtain ex…
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 Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
David Allen Lassiter (defendant)' appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
The defendant was convicted, following a bench trial, of committing the following crimes: (1) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; (2) domestic battery by strangulation; (3) aggravated assault with a firearm; and (4) battery domestic violence. His judgment was affirmed on direct appeal.
The defendant thereafter filed a motion for post-conviction relief, raising seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena videos from two motels because they would have been exculpatory. Specifically, he claimed the videos would have shown that:-' (1) the victim was already injured when she drove his car to the motel; (2) the victim vandalized his car; and (3) the victim chased him with a weapon. The trial court summarily denied this claim.
On appeal, the State properly concedes that the attached record did not refute the defendant’s claim regarding the videos. The State admitted that, if the videos existed, the defendant might be able to demonstrate the requisite prejudice, as the *312victim’s credibility at trial was crucial to the State’s case.
Because the record does not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim, and because nothing in the record indicates that trial counsel attempted to discover or locate the videos, the trial court erred in summarily denying this claim. See Bethea v. State, 767 So.2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying post-conviction relief as to this claim, and remand with instructions for the trial court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting this claim or, in the alternative, hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm as to all other claims.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., PALMER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.