Brumfield v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brumfield v. State

259 So. 3d 986

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 2018

DocketCase No. 5D18-1609

StatusPublished

This text of 259 So. 3d 986 (Brumfield 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

Brumfield v. State, 259 So. 3d 986 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Amanda Brumfield appeals the summary denial of her motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court's order without discussion, except as to a portion of claim two.

In claim two, Brumfield alleged, in part, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Dr. Chris Van Ee, a biomechanical engineer, and Dr. Mark Shuman, a forensic pathologist and associate medical examiner. To assert a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness, the defendant must: (1) identify the prospective witness, (2) describe the substance of the witness's testimony, (3) state the witness was available to testify, and (4) describe the prejudice resulting from omitting the witness's testimony. See Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 582-83 (Fla. 2004). Here, Brumfield adequately pled her claim as to Dr. Van Ee and Dr. Shuman, and the records attached to the trial court's order do not conclusively refute Brumfield's allegations.

Brumfield further alleged in claim two that two additional unidentified pathologists performed a preliminary review of the autopsy slides. As Brumfield's counsel properly concedes, the claim as to these two unidentified pathologists, as filed, was facially insufficient under Nelson. The trial court should have granted Brumfield an opportunity to amend. See id. at 583-84.

Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of that portion of claim two concerning the failure to call Dr. Van Ee, Dr. Shuman, and the two unidentified pathologists. We remand for attachment of records or an evidentiary hearing regarding *987the failure to call those witnesses, after Brumfield has had an opportunity to amend her motion, if she can do so in good faith. As to all other claims, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Amanda Brumfield appeals the summary denial of her motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court's order without discussion, except as to a portion of claim two.

In claim two, Brumfield alleged, in part, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Dr. Chris Van Ee, a biomechanical engineer, and Dr. Mark Shuman, a forensic pathologist and associate medical examiner. To assert a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness, the defendant must: (1) identify the prospective witness, (2) describe the substance of the witness's testimony, (3) state the witness was available to testify, and (4) describe the prejudice resulting from omitting the witness's testimony. See Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 582-83 (Fla. 2004). Here, Brumfield adequately pled her claim as to Dr. Van Ee and Dr. Shuman, and the records attached to the trial court's order do not conclusively refute Brumfield's allegations.

Brumfield further alleged in claim two that two additional unidentified pathologists performed a preliminary review of the autopsy slides. As Brumfield's counsel properly concedes, the claim as to these two unidentified pathologists, as filed, was facially insufficient under Nelson. The trial court should have granted Brumfield an opportunity to amend. See id. at 583-84.

Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of that portion of claim two concerning the failure to call Dr. Van Ee, Dr. Shuman, and the two unidentified pathologists. We remand for attachment of records or an evidentiary hearing regarding *987the failure to call those witnesses, after Brumfield has had an opportunity to amend her motion, if she can do so in good faith. As to all other claims, we affirm.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 So. 3d 986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brumfield-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack