Havard v. State
This text of 489 So. 2d 875 (Havard 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.
Opinion
Abner Lamar HAVARD and Joseph Carl Majewski, Appellants,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Abner Lamar Havard and Joseph Carl Majewski, pro se.
No Appearance for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Havard and Majewski seek review of the lower court's denial, without a hearing, of their motion for post conviction relief. The summary denial of appellants' motion was proper with one exception. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellants' claim that they received ineffective assistance of counsel by virtue of their attorney's failure to investigate alibi witnesses who appellants argue could have substantiated their claim of being in another state at the time the crimes of which they were convicted were committed. Because this particular allegation states a facially sufficient claim for relief, we remand this cause for further proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. Majewski v. State, 487 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); reh'g denied, (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In all other respects, the court's denial of relief is affirmed.
BOOTH, C.J., and ERVIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
489 So. 2d 875, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/havard-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.