Carver v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carver v. State

779 So. 2d 560, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 794, 2001 WL 76299

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-3297

StatusPublished

This text of 779 So. 2d 560 (Carver 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

Carver v. State, 779 So. 2d 560, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 794, 2001 WL 76299 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was summarily denied. We conclude that the motion sets forth one colorable claim. In his sixth claim for'relief, the appellant alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or call various character and exculpatory witnesses. This allegation satisfies rule 3.850(c) and the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509 (Fla.1999); Gillard v. State, 697 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, the trial court’s summary denial of this claim [561]*561is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings under the rule. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the remaining claims, including his claim under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). See Kwil v. State, 768 So.2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

MINER, ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was summarily denied. We conclude that the motion sets forth one colorable claim. In his sixth claim for'relief, the appellant alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or call various character and exculpatory witnesses. This allegation satisfies rule 3.850(c) and the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509 (Fla.1999); Gillard v. State, 697 So.2d 896 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Accordingly, the trial court’s summary denial of this claim [561]*561is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings under the rule. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the remaining claims, including his claim under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000). See Kwil v. State, 768 So.2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

MINER, ALLEN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

779 So. 2d 560, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 794, 2001 WL 76299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carver-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack