RICHARD E. HARRIS
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.
A trial court errs when it summarily denies a motion to amend timely-raised claims in a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion without allowing amendment, and summary denial is improper when the attached record does not conclusively refute the amended claims.
[1] A trial court errs when it denies a motion to amend timely-raised claims in a Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion without allowing the amendment to proceed.
[2] Summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion is improper when the record attached to the trial court's order does not conclusively refute the claims alleged, requiring either at…
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 intelligenceHarris appealed a summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, including claims that his counsel failed to inve…
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 Prejudice Requirement 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
RICHARD E. HARRIS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-1762
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed November2, 2018
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County, Patti A. Christensen, Judge.
Richard E. Harris, Cross City, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Richard E. Harris, appeals a final order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion and an order denying his motion to amend his claims. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. In his motion, Appellant alleged, among other claims: (1) that his counsel suffered from a conflict of interest, (2) that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate
2 several inconsistencies in the testimony of a key Williams1 rule witness when compared to the physical evidence, and (3) cumulative error. Appellant sufficiently alleged prejudice, asserting, for instance, in ground four that the result of the trial would have been different had his counsel attacked the credibility of the State’s witness with the inconsistencies. First, although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s request to raise new and untimely claims, the court did err when it denied Appellant’s motion to amend his existing and timely raised claims. See Johnson v. State, 247 So. 3d 698, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Norris v. State, 198 So. 3d 1036, 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). Second, we conclude that the records attached to the trial court’s order do not conclusively refute Appellant’s amended claims in grounds three and four.2 Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of grounds three, four, and five and remand for the circuit court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s amended claims or conduct an evidentiary hearing thereon. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED. WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Johnson v. State, 247 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Norris v. State, 198 So. 3d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)