Blanca v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blanca v. State

830 So. 2d 260, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16919, 2002 WL 31525317

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 15, 2002

DocketNo. 5D02-2747

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 830 So. 2d 260 (Blanca 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

Blanca v. State, 830 So. 2d 260, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 16919, 2002 WL 31525317 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, W., J.

Blanca appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We find that all but one of the grounds asserted by Blanca are without merit. See Floyd v. State, 808 So.2d 175 (Fla.2002); Smith v. State, 742 So.2d 352, 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Issac v. State, 767 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).

With regard to Blanca’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for not interviewing [261]*261and subpoenaing witnesses who could provide him with an alibi, this claim could have merited a hearing. He alleges he gave his counsel the names and addresses of three such witnesses, but none was called to testify. The trial court rejected this ground as facially insufficient, because Blanca failed to allege the witnesses were available to testify. Nelson v. State, 816 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Blanc’s motion, but without prejudice to refile a facially sufficient motion raising counsel’s failure to investigate and subpoena the alibi witnesses.

AFFIRMED.

COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.

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