Harrell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harrell v. State

443 So. 2d 1080, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11390

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1984

DocketNo. 83-2162

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 1080 (Harrell 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

Harrell v. State, 443 So. 2d 1080, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11390 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand.

In his motion, defendant claimed he provided trial counsel with the names and addresses of two potential alibi witnesses. Defense counsel allegedly failed to contact these witnesses, and failed to investigate the circumstances of the burglary. If defendant’s allegations are true, the trial counsel’s failure to investigate two potential alibi witnesses might constitute a substantial omission by defense counsel, and appellant might therefore be entitled to relief. Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981). The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which refute the allegations.

Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the allegations presented in the motion. Halpin v. State, 428 So.2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

OTT, C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand.

In his motion, defendant claimed he provided trial counsel with the names and addresses of two potential alibi witnesses. Defense counsel allegedly failed to contact these witnesses, and failed to investigate the circumstances of the burglary. If defendant’s allegations are true, the trial counsel’s failure to investigate two potential alibi witnesses might constitute a substantial omission by defense counsel, and appellant might therefore be entitled to relief. Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981). The trial court, however, failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which refute the allegations.

Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion is reversed and the case is remanded to the trial court. On remand, the trial court may either again summarily deny the motion and attach to its order those portions of the record which conclusively show that appellant is not entitled to relief, or hold an evidentiary hearing and then rule on the allegations presented in the motion. Halpin v. State, 428 So.2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

OTT, C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 So. 2d 1080, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrell-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack