CHRISTOPHER GATES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court affirmed the summary denial of one ineffective assistance claim but reversed and remanded two others for failure to state sufficient grounds, allowing the appellant to file a facially sufficient motion.
A post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel must allege specific defenses that should have been investigated and what they would have shown; failure to do so renders the motion legally insufficient.
[1] A post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must specify what defenses should have been investigated, what discovery efforts should have been unde…
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 intelligenceChristopher Gates appealed a trial court's summary denial of his post-conviction motion raising three grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel: fa…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Christopher Gates appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post conviction relief and supplemental motion raising what we have identified as three general grounds: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at his original guilty plea for failure to discuss with him and prepare legal defenses and investigations, leading him to believe he had no choice but .to plead guilty; (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at his guilty plea for violation of probation for failure to discuss with him and prepare legal defenses and investigation; and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the violation of probation case for failure to file a motion to suppress evidence seized at his residence. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of ground three based on the State’s response and attachment of his order of supervision.
Grounds one and two were legally insufficient, as appellant failed to allege what defenses should have been investigated, what discovery efforts should have been undertaken, and what they would have shown. However, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s grounds one and two, and remand to the trial court to permit appellant to file a facially sufficient motion within thirty (30) days, pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007).
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded.
GROSS, TAYLOR and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mendenhall v. State, 48 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 2010)…[*751] So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), and the First District in Wilson v. State, 898 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We also disapprove the decisions of the Fourth District in Collazo v. State, 966 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), Thurston v. State, 984 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), Leary v. State, 980 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), and Johnson v. State, 17 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), to the extent that those decisions hold that section 775.087(2)(a)(3) does not vest discretion in the trial judge to im…
-
Greggs v. State, 990 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…itnesses. On remand the trial court shall permit Greggs to file a facially sufficient motion within thirty (30) days, pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007). See also Davis v. State, 987 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Gates v. State, 984 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). STONE, STEVENSON and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.…
-
Booth v. State, 18 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…onflict on this point with the en banc majority decision in Collazo v. State, 966 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) and with three other Fourth District cases applying Collazo. See Johnson v. State, 17 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Thurston v. State, 984 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Leary v. State, 980 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Mendenhall also conflicts with Sousa v. State, 976 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) and Wilson v. State, 898 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), and is currently being reviewed by the…
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)