ALLEN L. DAVIS
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 must either attach records conclusively refuting an ineffective assistance claim regarding failure to suppress custodial statements made without Miranda warnings, or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court cannot summarily deny an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's failure to move to suppress statements by relying solely on trial testim…
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 intelligenceDavis appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress inc…
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 Custodial Interrogation 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 ALLEN LEE DAVIS, Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-3239 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed February 16, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet, Judge.
Allen L. Davis, Lowell, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM. Allen Davis appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his first claim, Davis alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements that Davis had made to a detective. In summarily denying the claim, the trial court relied on the detective’s trial testimony to determine that a motion to suppress would have been fruitless. However, the record does not conclusively refute
Davis’ claim that his statements were made during a custodial interrogation, during which he was not advised of his Miranda1 rights. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court must either attach records conclusively refuting this claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm, without discussion, the summary denial of the remainder of Davis’ claims.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
PALMER, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.