Bailey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bailey v. State

911 So. 2d 1293, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16230, 2005 WL 2513294

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-5155

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 911 So. 2d 1293 (Bailey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. State, 911 So. 2d 1293, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16230, 2005 WL 2513294 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SALCINES, Judge.

Ruben Junior Bailey appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Bailey raised eight grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm without comment as to the denial of grounds one, two, three, five, [1294]*1294six, and eight. We reverse as to ground four. We affirm, but write to clarify as to ground seven.

In ground four of his motion, Bailey claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on attempted robbery, as a lesser-included offense of armed robbery. Because Bailey raised similar arguments in grounds one and four of his motion, the trial court combined the grounds. The trial court relied on the reasoning in ground one of its order to summarily deny ground four of Bailey’s motion. However, the reasoning in ground one of the trial court’s order does not apply to ground four of Bailey’s motion. As a result, the trial court failed to address the issue raised in ground four of Bailey’s motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider ground four.

We affirm as to ground seven of his motion. We note that the trial court’s order had a specific ruling for ground seven. However, this ruling did not address the actual argument made by Bailey in this ground. We affirm the denial of this ground because Bailey’s argument is facially insufficient. Bailey failed to allege, nor does the record provide, any support as to how the alleged testimony of the witness, Eduveha Bennett, would have been admissible at trial. See § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SALCINES, Judge.

Ruben Junior Bailey appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Bailey raised eight grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm without comment as to the denial of grounds one, two, three, five, [1294]*1294six, and eight. We reverse as to ground four. We affirm, but write to clarify as to ground seven.

In ground four of his motion, Bailey claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on attempted robbery, as a lesser-included offense of armed robbery. Because Bailey raised similar arguments in grounds one and four of his motion, the trial court combined the grounds. The trial court relied on the reasoning in ground one of its order to summarily deny ground four of Bailey’s motion. However, the reasoning in ground one of the trial court’s order does not apply to ground four of Bailey’s motion. As a result, the trial court failed to address the issue raised in ground four of Bailey’s motion. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider ground four.

We affirm as to ground seven of his motion. We note that the trial court’s order had a specific ruling for ground seven. However, this ruling did not address the actual argument made by Bailey in this ground. We affirm the denial of this ground because Bailey’s argument is facially insufficient. Bailey failed to allege, nor does the record provide, any support as to how the alleged testimony of the witness, Eduveha Bennett, would have been admissible at trial. See § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2001).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 So. 2d 1293, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16230, 2005 WL 2513294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack