PATRICK LAMON BROWN, 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.
Patrick Lamon Brown appeals the summary denial of his postconviction relief motion and sentence correction motion. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirmed the denial of most grounds but reversed and remanded Grounds Five, Six, and Eight, finding that certain ineffective assistance of counsel claims were not conclusively refuted by the record and that one claim was insufficiently pleaded.
The court affirmed the denial of Grounds One, Two, Three, Four, Seven, Nine, Ten, and Eleven, and the rule 3.800(a) motion without discussion. The court reversed the summary denial of Grounds Six and Eight because the record did not conclusively refute the claims of ineffective counsel, and reversed the summary denial of Ground Five because it was insufficiently pleaded, requiring amendment.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) may be summarily denied if the motion, files, and records conclusively show the…
[2] 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 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 defendant is entitled to an evidentiary 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.”
Establishes the legal standard for when summary denial of postconviction relief is appropriate and when an evidentiary hearing must be held.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick Lamon Brown filed a postconviction relief motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an…
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 Mental Illness cases and more on FLexlaw
Patrick Lamon Brown appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.1 We affirm the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion without further discussion. As for Brown's motion for postconviction relief, we affirm as to Grounds One, Two, Three, Four, Seven, Nine, Ten, and Eleven. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Brown's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a defective jury instruction and failing to inform the trial court about his mental illness, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds Six and Eight and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary 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) ) ). We conclude that Ground Five of Brown's motion, alleging counsel was ineffective for failing to subpoena witnesses, was insufficiently pled. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of this ground and remand for the purpose of providing Brown an opportunity to amend this claim. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 762 (Fla. 2007).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, PALMER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Algiere v. State, 309 So. 3d 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…to reflect a violation of condition 71 instead of condition 19. See Quijano, 270 So. 3d at 550. We also direct that the order be amended on remand to the extent that it inaccurately states that Algiere admitted the violation. See Torres v. State, 244 So. 3d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). Affirmed and remanded with directions. VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.…
-
MC Daniel v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…obation and resulting sentences and remanding for entry of an amended revocation order to correct the condition appellant was found to have violated as well as the inaccurate statement that appellant had admitted to the violation); Torres v. State, 244 So. 3d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) ("[W]e reverse the revocation order to the extent that it incorrectly states that Mr. Torres admitted the violations, and we remand for the trial court to correct this scrivener's error."). Affirmed in part; reversed in part;…
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)