Johnny A. Marshall v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johnny A. Marshall v. State

198 So. 3d 1083, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12581, 2016 WL 4417687

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 19, 2016

Docket5D16-1081

StatusPublished

This text of 198 So. 3d 1083 (Johnny A. Marshall 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

Johnny A. Marshall v. State, 198 So. 3d 1083, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12581, 2016 WL 4417687 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Anthony Marshall appeals the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to, Grounds B, D, and E. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Marshall’s claims that counsel was (I)- ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of hearsay by Detective Newton and (2) ineffective for failing to investigate and present an alibi defense, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds A and G and remand for the postconviction court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evidentiary hearing. 1 See Freeman v. *1084 State, 761 So.2d 1065, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996))).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

TORPY, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

1

. See generally Hannon v. State, 941 So.2d 1109, 1138 (Fla.2006) (noting that trial strate *1084 gy cannot normally be determined without an evidentiary hearing, but also stating that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary when "it is so obvious from the face of the record that trial counsel’s strategy not to present a [particular defense] is very clearly a tactical decision well within the discretion of counsel

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

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Anthony Marshall appeals the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to, Grounds B, D, and E. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Marshall’s claims that counsel was (I)- ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of hearsay by Detective Newton and (2) ineffective for failing to investigate and present an alibi defense, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds A and G and remand for the postconviction court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evidentiary hearing. 1 See Freeman v. *1084 State, 761 So.2d 1065, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996))).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

TORPY, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

1

. See generally Hannon v. State, 941 So.2d 1109, 1138 (Fla.2006) (noting that trial strate *1084 gy cannot normally be determined without an evidentiary hearing, but also stating that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary when "it is so obvious from the face of the record that trial counsel’s strategy not to present a [particular defense] is very clearly a tactical decision well within the discretion of counsel

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 So. 3d 1083, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12581, 2016 WL 4417687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnny-a-marshall-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack