Hill v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hill v. State

922 So. 2d 278, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3476, 2006 WL 437504

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 2006

DocketNo. 4D05-2663

StatusPublished

This text of 922 So. 2d 278 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 922 So. 2d 278, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3476, 2006 WL 437504 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Anthony Laverne Hill appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief alleging five separate claims. We affirm the summary denial of claims four and five. We affirm the denial of claim one, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to call a particular witness yet failed to allege whether that witness was available for trial. Thus, our affir-mance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile his claim on this ground within thirty days in compliance with Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004).

We reverse and remand the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s claims two and three for attachment of portions of the record refuting them or an evidentiary hearing. In those two claims, he alleged different but related claims of failure of trial counsel to investigate. An attorney has a duty to make reasonable investigations in his or her cases. Squires v. State, 558 So.2d 401 (Fla.1990).

Affirm in Part, Affirm Without Prejudice in Part, Reverse and Remand in Part.

STEVENSON, C.J., FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Anthony Laverne Hill appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief alleging five separate claims. We affirm the summary denial of claims four and five. We affirm the denial of claim one, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to call a particular witness yet failed to allege whether that witness was available for trial. Thus, our affir-mance is without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile his claim on this ground within thirty days in compliance with Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004).

We reverse and remand the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s claims two and three for attachment of portions of the record refuting them or an evidentiary hearing. In those two claims, he alleged different but related claims of failure of trial counsel to investigate. An attorney has a duty to make reasonable investigations in his or her cases. Squires v. State, 558 So.2d 401 (Fla.1990).

Affirm in Part, Affirm Without Prejudice in Part, Reverse and Remand in Part.

STEVENSON, C.J., FARMER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

922 So. 2d 278, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 3476, 2006 WL 437504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack