JULIUS ERWING BLACK, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed summary denial of one ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding failure to call co-defendant as witness, where record did not conclusively refute the claim, but affirmed denial of all other postconviction relief grounds.
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion when the record does not conclusively refute a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no…
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 intelligenceJulius Black appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion, which included ten grounds for relief, including a claim that…
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 Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
Julius Black appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed *467pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One through Six and Eight through Ten. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Black’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call co-defendant, Philip Snead, as a witness, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Seven and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing.1 See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evi-dentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996))).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
PALMER, COHEN, and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Black v. State, 219 So. 3d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)
- Forte v. State, 189 So. 3d 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Gibson v. State, 976 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)