Gaffney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gaffney v. State

214 So. 3d 714, 2017 WL 727668, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2522

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 2017

DocketCase No. 5D15-3914

StatusPublished

This text of 214 So. 3d 714 (Gaffney 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

Gaffney v. State, 214 So. 3d 714, 2017 WL 727668, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2522 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Gaffney appeals the order of the trial court denying Grounds One through Nine of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.860 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm as to Grounds Two through Nine. However, because the record attachments do not conclusively refute Gaffney’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for threatening or coercing him into deciding not to testify at trial, we reverse the summary denial of Ground One and remand for attachment of portions of the. record conclusively refuting this claim or for an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996))).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gregory Gaffney appeals the order of the trial court denying Grounds One through Nine of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.860 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm as to Grounds Two through Nine. However, because the record attachments do not conclusively refute Gaffney’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for threatening or coercing him into deciding not to testify at trial, we reverse the summary denial of Ground One and remand for attachment of portions of the. record conclusively refuting this claim or for an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996))).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 So. 3d 714, 2017 WL 727668, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaffney-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack