DEXTER COWAN
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.
Where the record does not conclusively refute a claim that counsel failed to call an expert witness to challenge the State's fingerprint expert, summary denial of a 3.850 motion is reversed and remanded for attachment of conclusively refuting portions of the record or an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to call an expert witness to challenge the prosecution's expert evidence cannot be summarily denie…
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 intelligenceDexter Cowan filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising seven grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. …
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dexter Cowan appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Cowan raises seven grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the record does not conclusively refute Cowan's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert witness to challenge the conclusions made by the State's fingerprint expert, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Five and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting this claim or for an evidentiary hearing. See Cox v. State, 189 So. 3d 221, 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Ward v. State, 861 So. 2d 107, 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Baker v. State, 826 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We affirm on all other grounds. AFFIRMED in Part, REVERSED in Part, and REMANDED with Instructions. PALMER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jeandis Estime v. State, 826 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- COX v. State, 189 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Demeshio Ward v. State, 861 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)