JAMES BRANDON SMITH
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2018-12-14
No. 18-1153
Craner, J., Evander, J., Lambert, J., Harris, J.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2018)

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.

Holding

A trial court may not summarily deny an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a co-defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence when that motion does not address the defendant's involvement in the crime and does not conclusively refute the defendant's claim.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court may not summarily deny an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on a co-defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence unless that motion conclus…

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 intelligence
Key Quotes

“Based upon the limited record, it cannot conclusively be said that Tucker's purported testimony would not have changed the outcome of the proceeding.”

Court's reasoning for reversing the summary denial and remanding for evidentiary hearing
Facts & Procedural History

James Brandon Smith appealed the trial court's summary denial of his postconviction relief motions under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Smi…

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.

Topics
Co-Defendant Testimony Postconviction Relief Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Co-Defendant Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Harris

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

JAMES BRANDON SMITH,

Appellant,

v. Case Nos. 5D18-1153 and

5D18-1171 STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 14, 2018

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County,

A. James Craner, Judge.

James Brandon Smith, Okeechobee, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison

L.

Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

James Brandon Smith appeals the trial court’s orders summarily denying his motions for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the summary denial on all grounds except the portion of ground four of the rule 3.850 motion filed on September2, 2015. In that motion, Smith alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call his co-defendant, Calvin J. Tucker, as a witness at trial. Smith argues that if Tucker had been called as a witness in Smith’s trial, Tucker

EVANDER, LAMBERT, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
2 would have said that Smith was not involved in the commission of the crime and only stated otherwise to obtain a favorable plea from the State. The trial court summarily denied this claim, finding that it lacked merit. Specifically, the court found that the motion to correct an illegal sentence filed by Tucker refuted Smith’s claim that Tucker would have testified that Smith was not involved in the crime. However, Tucker’s rule 3.800(a) motion does not conclusively refute Smith’s claim. Contrary to the trial court’s finding, the motion does not discuss or even mention Smith’s involvement in the robbery. Even if Tucker had discussed Smith’s involvement in the crime in his motion to correct illegal sentence, at best this fact would create a factual dispute that would have to be resolved by an evidentiary hearing. Based upon the limited record, it cannot conclusively be said that Tucker’s purported testimony would not have changed the outcome of the proceeding. Accordingly, this limited portion of ground four is reversed and remanded for the trial court to attach additional documents that would conclusively refute the claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See,e.g., Ford v. State, 825 So. 2d 358, 361 (Fla. 2002). In all other respects, the order denying Smith’s motion for postconviction relief is affirmed. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw