Julius E. Black v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Julius E. Black v. State

202 So. 3d 466, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16051

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 28, 2016

Docket5D16-1952

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 202 So. 3d 466 (Julius E. Black 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

Julius E. Black v. State, 202 So. 3d 466, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16051 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Julius Black appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed *467 pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One through Six and Eight through Ten. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Black’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call co-defendant, Philip Snead, as a witness, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Seven and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing. 1 See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evi-dentiary 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.

PALMER, COHEN, and BERGER, JJ., concur.

1

. The trial court noted in its order that Snead was a co-defendant facing the same charges and awaiting trial at the time Black went to trial; however, there is nothing in the record that demonstrates Snead’s charges were pending or that Snead invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Echevarria v. State, 976 So.2d 84, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Forte v. State, 189 So.3d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

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

PER CURIAM.

Julius Black appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed *467 pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One through Six and Eight through Ten. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Black’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call co-defendant, Philip Snead, as a witness, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Seven and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing. 1 See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evi-dentiary 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.

PALMER, COHEN, and BERGER, JJ., concur.

1

. The trial court noted in its order that Snead was a co-defendant facing the same charges and awaiting trial at the time Black went to trial; however, there is nothing in the record that demonstrates Snead’s charges were pending or that Snead invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Echevarria v. State, 976 So.2d 84, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Forte v. State, 189 So.3d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 So. 3d 466, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/julius-e-black-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack