JOSEPH FARLEY, 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.
Joseph Farley appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel on 16 grounds. The appellate court affirms the denial of 15 grounds but reverses and remands Ground Six, which alleges counsel falsely assured him that all discovery materials regarding his blood draw had been received and were not helpful to the defense, inducing him to plead guilty.
The court held that Ground Six stated a facially sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel that was not refuted by the record excerpts attached to the postconviction court's order. The motion for discovery did not refute the claim that counsel's misrepresentation induced Farley to enter a plea.
[1] A postconviction court must either attach record portions refuting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's misrepresentation about the completeness and benefit of discovery materials may be facially sufficient.
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“This claim is facially sufficient, see Mason v. State, 742 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and as the State concedes, it is not refuted by the record excerpts attached to the postconviction court's order.”
Establishes that Ground Six meets the facial sufficiency requirement for ineffective assistance claims and was not refuted by the record.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFarley pleaded guilty to two counts of DUI manslaughter. His judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 2014. In May 2016, he filed a tim…
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 Discovery Materials cases and more on FLexlaw
Joseph Farley appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in all respects except for the summary denial of Ground Six. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on that ground for the reasons that follow.
Farley pled guilty to two counts of DUI manslaughter and his judgment and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in Farley v. State, 151 So.3d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (unpublished table opinion). In May 2016, Farley filed a timely rule 3.850 motion containing 16 “grounds” for relief, all of which alleged claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The postconviction court summarily denied the motion, finding all of the claims to be legally insufficient and/or refuted by the record. This timely appeal followed.
In Ground Six of the motion, Farley alleged that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient because he told Farley that all of the discovery materials pertaining to his blood draw had been received and contained nothing beneficial to the defense when, in fact, several discovery requests were still awaiting a response. Farley further alleged that but for this deficient performance he would not have entered a negotiated plea and instead would have insisted on going to trial.
This claim is facially sufficient, see Mason v. State, 742 So.2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and as the State concedes, it is not refuted by the record excerpts attached to the postconviction court’s order. The mo*1141tion for discovery attached to the order refutes any suggestion that trial counsel failed to pursue discovery pertaining to Farley’s blood draw, but it does not refute the claim alleged in Ground Six that counsel’s misrepresentation that all of the discovery responses had been received and were not beneficial to the defense induced Farley to enter a plea.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Six and remand for the postconviction court to either attach portions of the record refuting the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel alleged in that ground or to hold an evidentiary hearing on that ground. In all other respects we affirm the postconviction court’s order.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with directions.
WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.