Duane M. Blake v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duane M. Blake v. State

150 So. 3d 1202, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18397, 2014 WL 5834350

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 2014

Docket4D14-1816

StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 3d 1202 (Duane M. Blake 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

Duane M. Blake v. State, 150 So. 3d 1202, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18397, 2014 WL 5834350 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of grounds one through five and seven of appellant’s pro se. motion for post-conviction relief. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. However, as to ground six, we reverse and remand with directions to grant the appellant an evidentiary hearing. See Morales v. State, 731 So.2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In ground six, appellant alleged that trial counsel failed to call an available defense witness who would have testified that the victim of the shooting was pointing a firearm at appellant when he shot his firearm, thus potentially corroborating appellant’s *1203 asserted self-defense claim. See Morales, 731 So.2d at 92; see also Moran v. State, 750 So.2d 182, 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Balmori v. State, 985 So.2d 646, 650-651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Spellers v. State, 993 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

•GROSS, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the summary denial of grounds one through five and seven of appellant’s pro se. motion for post-conviction relief. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. However, as to ground six, we reverse and remand with directions to grant the appellant an evidentiary hearing. See Morales v. State, 731 So.2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). In ground six, appellant alleged that trial counsel failed to call an available defense witness who would have testified that the victim of the shooting was pointing a firearm at appellant when he shot his firearm, thus potentially corroborating appellant’s *1203 asserted self-defense claim. See Morales, 731 So.2d at 92; see also Moran v. State, 750 So.2d 182, 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Balmori v. State, 985 So.2d 646, 650-651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Spellers v. State, 993 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

•GROSS, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 3d 1202, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18397, 2014 WL 5834350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duane-m-blake-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack