KENNY MITCHELL, III
v.
STATE
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.
A trial court cannot summarily deny an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's apparent intent to call alibi witnesses and use employment records without record evidence that conclusively refutes the claim.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief must be granted an evidentiary hearing unless the allegations are facially insufficient, conclusively refuted by the record, or legall…
[2] The filing of a disclosure of alibi witnesses and a notice of intent to introduce employment records does not, on its own, conclusively refute a claim that counsel was in…
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 intelligenceKenny Mitchell, III sought post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for faili…
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 Disclosure Of Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED KENNY MITCHELL, III, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-2908 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 9, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John Marshall Kest, Judge.
Kenny Mitchell, III, Bonifay, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Kenny Mitchell, III, appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant’s motion made four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel below. We find that the record does not conclusively refute Appellant’s first claim, but otherwise affirm.
In his first claim, Appellant alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate four alibi witnesses, his time card, and video surveillance—all of which he claims would have established that he was at work at the time the crime was committed.
The trial court summarily denied this claim finding that Appellant’s counsel filed a disclosure of three of the four alibi witnesses before trial and filed a notice of intent to introduce employment records. According to the trial court, this demonstrated that
Appellant’s counsel did in fact investigate the alibi, and therefore the court concluded that the record conclusively refuted Appellant’s claims.
We review the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion de novo. Lebron v. State,
100 So. 3d 132, 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). The trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing unless the allegations are facially insufficient, are conclusively refuted by the record, or are legally insufficient. Id.
While counsel’s apparent intent to call three of the four alibi witnesses and use at least some employment records at trial may be relevant, we cannot conclude that this alone conclusively refutes Appellant’s entire claim. We therefore reverse the summary denial as to this claim, and remand for the trial court to attach record evidence conclusively refuting Appellant’s claim, or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. ORFINGER, TORPY AND EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.