JOSE LUIS GARCIA SOLAR
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 properly denied all seven claims in the rule 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court may summarily deny a rule 3.850 ineffective assistance of counsel claim if the record conclusively refutes the claim, but if the defendant states a legally…
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 intelligenceJose Luis Garcia Solar appealed a trial court order denying his rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Among his seven cl…
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 Exclude Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. GERBER, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur. FORST, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. FORST, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent in part. Appellant was not afforded an evidentiary hearing on any of the claims raised in his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. I agree with the majority in finding no error in the trial court summarily denying six of the seven claims. However, I would remand for an evidentiary hearing with respect to Appellant’s contention that counsel’s failure to move to exclude incriminating evidence of items found in the vehicle in which Appellant was stopped constituted reversible ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant “stated a legally sufficient claim for relief, and the record before this court does not conclusively refute the claim.” Harris v. State, 74 So. 3d 567, 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.