WAYNE MYERS, 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.
Wayne Myers appeals a trial court's summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on four claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The appellate court reversed and remanded as to one ground and affirmed the others, finding that one claim was facially insufficient and should be given an opportunity to be re-alleged with proper particularity.
The court reversed the summary denial of ground three due to facial insufficiency and remanded to permit Myers to re-allege that ground with proper particularity as to the expected testimony of the witnesses. The court affirmed the summary denial of the other three grounds without discussion.
“In it, Myers claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, depose, or subpoena four named witnesses who, he alleged, were available to testify in corroboration of his version of events surrounding the charged offense.”
Describes the substance of ground three of Myers' ineffective assistance claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMyers was convicted of a charged offense and filed a motion for post-conviction relief raising four claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.…
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 Facially Insufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Wayne Myers appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief, raising four claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We reverse and remand for further proceedings as to ground three, and affirm without discussion as to the other three grounds for relief.
The trial court recognized that ground three was facially insufficient. In it, Myers claimed his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, depose, or subpoena four named witnesses who, he alleged, were available to testify in corroboration of his version of events surrounding the charged offense. He alleged he requested that counsel depose, investigate, and subpoena them, and claimed their testimony would have conflicted with that of the state’s witnesses. However, he failed to state with particularity the substance of the expected testimony.
We reverse the trial court’s summary denial of ground three only and remand to the trial court to permit Myers to re-allege this ground in a facially sufficient motion, pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla.2007).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
STONE, POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.