PATRICK L. BROWN
v.
SATE
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 postconviction relief claims when the record does not conclusively refute the defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] When the record does not conclusively refute a defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding jury instructions or the trial court's knowledge of…
[2] A postconviction relief claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to subpoena witnesses must be sufficiently pleaded, and if insufficient, the defendan…
Previewing 2 of 2 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.”
Court's application of the Freeman standard for postconviction relief proceedings
Patrick Lamon Brown appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief and Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sent…
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 Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
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
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)