Hutchinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hutchinson v. State

660 So. 2d 333, 1995 WL 508911

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 30, 1995

DocketNo. 95-00075

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 660 So. 2d 333 (Hutchinson 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

Hutchinson v. State, 660 So. 2d 333, 1995 WL 508911 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. His motion alleges a variety of inadequacies in his trial counsel’s performance. We affirm the trial court’s order denying his motion with the exception of one deficiency which we find merits attention.

It is claimed by the appellant that his trial attorney failed to impeach two witnesses, Gabriele and Margaret Hutchinson. The trial court found that Gabriele was a defense witness and, contrary to appellant’s assertion, that Margaret’s testimony and her pretrial deposition were in faet consistent. The trial court, however, in denying postconviction relief, provided nothing to substantiate its factual determination of testimonial consistency or that Gabriele was a defense witness. Thus, we reverse to accord the trial court an opportunity to provide record evidence supporting its findings, or in the alternative to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must seek review within thirty days of the court’s order.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

FRANK, AC.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant seeks review of an order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. His motion alleges a variety of inadequacies in his trial counsel’s performance. We affirm the trial court’s order denying his motion with the exception of one deficiency which we find merits attention.

It is claimed by the appellant that his trial attorney failed to impeach two witnesses, Gabriele and Margaret Hutchinson. The trial court found that Gabriele was a defense witness and, contrary to appellant’s assertion, that Margaret’s testimony and her pretrial deposition were in faet consistent. The trial court, however, in denying postconviction relief, provided nothing to substantiate its factual determination of testimonial consistency or that Gabriele was a defense witness. Thus, we reverse to accord the trial court an opportunity to provide record evidence supporting its findings, or in the alternative to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must seek review within thirty days of the court’s order.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

FRANK, AC.J., and BLUE and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

660 So. 2d 333, 1995 WL 508911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack