Holmes v. State
Opinion
This is an appeal from an order summarily denying a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The defendant, Mark Holmes, raises four grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion. We affirm grounds one and four, finding those claims do not have merit. As for grounds two and three, where the defendant alleges his trial counsel failed to adequately prepare for the competency hearing and call two witnesses for his defense, we reverse because the post-conviction record does not conclusively show the defendant is entitled to no relief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). The record now before us merely includes the motion for post-conviction relief, an affidavit of Patricia Silvers, and the trial court’s order. Thus, we reverse the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing or for the attachment of record excerpts conclusively showing the appellant is entitled to no relief.
Reversed, in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
35 So. 3d 951 (Holmes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.