JUSTIN LAMAR JONES
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 Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must adequately plead both deficiency in counsel's performance and resulting prejudice, and summary denial is improper when the motion is facially insufficient without opportunity to amend.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must contain sufficient factual allegations establishing both deficiency in counsel's perfo…
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 intelligenceAppellant rejected a favorable fifteen-year plea offer based on trial counsel's advice and subsequently pled guilty, receiving the State's recommended…
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 Facial Insufficiency Of Motion 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
JUSTIN LAMAR JONES,
Appellant,
v.
Case No. 5D19-2023
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed February 28, 2020
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Lawrence J. Semento, Judge.
Justin Lamar Jones, Blountstown, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Justin Lamar Jones, appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse because Appellant’s motion was facially insufficient, and he has not yet been given an opportunity to amend.
In his motion, Appellant alleged that he rejected a favorable fifteen-year plea offer based on the advice of his trial counsel. He later pled and was sentenced to the State’s recommended sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment. Although Appellant alleged in his
As such, we reverse the summary denial and remand with instructions that the trial court grant Appellant an opportunity to amend this claim if he can do so in good faith. REVERSED and REMANDED. WALLIS, EISNAUGLE, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.