BRYAN SYDNEY MENSAH VS 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 must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a Giglio violation claim when the record does not conclusively refute the allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction motion alleging a Giglio violation when the record does not conclusively refute the defendant's alle…
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“the record does not "show[] conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief," and we "must . . . reverse[] and . . . remand[] for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief."”
The court's explanation for why summary denial was improper and an evidentiary hearing was required.
Mensah was convicted and sought postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He alleged that trial counsel informed him the S…
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 Giglio Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2023-3105 Lower Tribunal No. 2016-CF-003513
BRYAN SYDNEY MENSAH, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Osceola County. Tanya Davis Wilson, Judge.
August 28, 2026
GANNAM, J.
Bryan Mensah appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to ground 1, but reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing as to ground 2. Mensah's ground 2 claims a Giglio¹ violation, alleging the State allowed a key witness against Mensah to testify falsely. Specifically, Mensah alleged his trial counsel told him the State
¹ Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).
promised the witness a lenient plea deal in return for his testimony against Mensah, and further alleged the State knowingly elicited false testimony from the witness that he was not promised anything by the State in return for his testimony. While it's true Mensah's motion did not include or point to any evidence of the truth of these allegations, the portions of the record the postconviction court attached to its order denying the motion do not conclusively refute them. Thus, the record does not "show[] conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief," and we "must . . . reverse[] and . . . remand[] for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief." Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D).
Accordingly, as to the alleged Giglio violation in ground 2, we reverse the order denying Mensah's rule 3.850 motion and remand for the trial court to either enter a new order of denial attaching record materials conclusively refuting Mensah's allegations, conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion, or conduct other proceedings consistent with this opinion.²
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
TRAVER, C.J., and BROWNLEE, J., concur.
² Because it is not before us, and given our limited record, we make no determination as to whether ground 2 was sufficiently pled. On remand, prior to conducting any evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court is free to reconsider the legal sufficiency of ground 2 in Mensah's amended motion.
Matthew R. McLain, of McLain Law, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.