TRACEY MACKEY
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.
The trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness whose testimony would have supported the defense, or must attach records conclusively refuting the claim.
[1] A postconviction court's summary denial of a claim must be reversed if the record does not conclusively show that the appellant is entitled to no relief.
[2] To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a witness, a defendant must identify the witness, the substance of their testimony, their availabilit…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTracey Mackey sought postconviction relief alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness. The trial court summarily denied …
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 Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. This is Tracey Mackey’s third postconviction relief appeal to this court. In
Mackey v. State, 219 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this court reversed the summary denial of Mackey’s postconviction motion and instructed the lower court to afford Mackey the opportunity to amend. In Mackey v. State, 236 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2018), this court affirmed the denial, after amendment, of Mackey’s motion on all grounds except Ground Two, which alleged that Mackey’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a particular witness who would have afforded testimony supporting his defense at trial. This court ruled that Ground Two was “facially sufficient” and instructed the lower court to either hold an evidentiary hearing on that claim or attach records conclusively refuting it. Id. at 505.
On remand, the lower court denied Ground Two, finding that the record conclusively showed that: (1) Mackey and his counsel noted on the record at trial that the witness had proved difficult to find because she changed her phone number and refused to testify; and (2) Mackey could not show prejudice even if his allegations were true because there was “overwhelming evidence” of Mackey’s guilt. We respectfully disagree with the trial court. First, the records attached to the trial court’s order do not refute Mackey’s claim that counsel misrepresented to him the availability of the witness.
Second, the alleged anticipated testimony of the uncalled witness, if found credible,
would undermine the identification testimony of the two alleged victims, as well as provide a non-incriminating reason why a scrap of cloth with Mackey’s DNA was found at the scene of the alleged crime.
The trial court is directed, on remand, to attach additional records conclusively refuting Mackey’s claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with instructions.
EVANDER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- MacKey v. State, 219 So. 3d 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- MacKey v. State, 236 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)