JAMES DESMOND BOOTH
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.
When a Rule 3.850 motion raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel that are not conclusively refuted by the record, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing rather than summarily denying the motion.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 3.850 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel when the claims raised are not conclusively refuted by the…
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 Booth filed an amended Rule 3.850 motion raising seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in his criminal case. The trial court sum…
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 Evidentiary Hearing 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
JAMES DESMOND BOOTH, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D21-479 LT Case No. 2012-CF-30612 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed November 5, 2021 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Volusia County, James R. Clayton, Judge. Michael Ufferman, of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
2 Appellant appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his amended motions seeking post conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motions, Appellant raised seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Concluding that the records attached to the denial order do not conclusively refute the claims raised in grounds two, three, six, and seven of the amended motion and that part of ground five regarding the allegation that the witnesses Ward and Hickson allegedly accepted bribes from the State in exchange for their trial testimony against Appellant, we reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing as to these grounds. See Robinson v. State, 972 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (reversing summary denial of Rule 3.850 motion because claims were not conclusively refuted by the record). Therefore, we reverse and remand these specific grounds for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court’s ruling with regard to all other grounds. AFFIRMED in Part, REVERSED in Part, and REMANDED with Instructions. LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.