REGINALD JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Reginald Johnson appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found that Johnson's claim regarding failure to call three defense witnesses was pleaded with sufficient particularity and reversed the summary denial, remanding for an evidentiary hearing, while affirming the denial of his remaining claims.
Claim 12 was pleaded in a facially sufficient manner. The trial court erred in summarily denying the claim based on an assertion that Johnson failed to include witness addresses, as addresses are not a statutory requirement for pleading such a claim. The order is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on Claim 12.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call witnesses is facially sufficient if it identifies the prospective witnes…
[2] A trial court cannot summarily deny a claim for postconviction relief without attaching portions of the record that conclusively show the defendant is entitled to no reli…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 review of the motion indicates that Johnson did, in fact, set forth the names of the witnesses, allege they were available for trial, describe the specific testimony they would have given, and describe the prejudicial impact that testimony would have had if presented at trial”
Establishes that Johnson met the pleading requirements for an ineffective assistance claim despite the trial court's contrary finding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was convicted at trial and filed a postconviction motion raising thirteen claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In Claim 12, Johnson al…
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 Strickland V. Washington Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We deny each parties’ motion for rehearing,' withdraw our previously-issued opinion, and substitute this opinion in its stead.
The defendant, Reginald Johnson, appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Out of the thirteen separate claims Johnson raised in his postconviction motion, we find only one warrants discussion.
In Claim 12, Johnson contended his counsel was ineffective for failing to call three defense witnesses at trial. The trial court summarily denied this claim, concluding that the motion “failed to state with particularity the names and addresses of the witnesses as well as the content of their anticipated testimony and the effects this testimony would have on the verdict.” However, a review of the motion indicates that Johnson did, in fact, set forth the names of the witnesses, allege they were available for trial, describe the specific testimony they would have given, and describe the prejudicial impact that testimony would have had if presented at trial, including its contradiction of the state witnesses’ testimony.1
We conclude that Claim 12 was pleaded in a facially sufficient manner. On appeal, *918the State contends that, even if the allegations of Claim 12 are facially sufficient, and even if those allegations are accepted as true, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had these three witnesses testified at the trial.2 However, the State did not present this argument to the trial court below; its sole argument as to Claim 12 was that it was a facially insufficient claim. The trial court adopted the State’s argument and denied Claim 12 on that basis alone.3
The trial court summarily denied Claim 12 (as well as the other claims) without attaching “a portion of the files and records that conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief’ on his claim. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(f)(5). See also Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D) (providing that on appeal from summary denial, “unless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief’). Thus, with respect to Claim 12 only, wé reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
As to the remaining claims raised by Johnson, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial without discussion.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- Alwin J. Jacobs v. State, 880 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2004)
- Smith v. State, 481 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Flanders v. State, 994 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)