Kiser v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kiser v. State

903 So. 2d 290, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8504, 2005 WL 1338237

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 2005

DocketNo. 3D04-1649

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 903 So. 2d 290 (Kiser 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

Kiser v. State, 903 So. 2d 290, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8504, 2005 WL 1338237 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Melvin P. Kiser appeals from an order denying a 3.850 post-conviction motion in which he raised a number of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. With the exception of Kiser’s first claim regarding counsel’s advice as to whether he should testify at trial, which we find to be facially sufficient, we affirm.

Because the record does not conclusively show that Kiser is not entitled to relief on his facially sufficient claim regarding counsel’s advice as to whether he should testify at trial, we remand that claim to the court below for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Jacobs v. State, 880 So.2d 548, 558 (Fla.2004) (finding that “[u]nder rule 3.850, a defendant is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing unless the motion and record conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief’); Gordon v. State, 608 So.2d 925, 925-26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (concluding that “when the trial court is confronted with the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a finding that some action or inaction by defense counsel was tactical is generally inappropriate, without an evi-dentiary hearing. Instead, counsel should be heard from, and, if necessary, cross-examined as to whether a decision truly was ‘tactical’ ”).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Melvin P. Kiser appeals from an order denying a 3.850 post-conviction motion in which he raised a number of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. With the exception of Kiser’s first claim regarding counsel’s advice as to whether he should testify at trial, which we find to be facially sufficient, we affirm.

Because the record does not conclusively show that Kiser is not entitled to relief on his facially sufficient claim regarding counsel’s advice as to whether he should testify at trial, we remand that claim to the court below for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Jacobs v. State, 880 So.2d 548, 558 (Fla.2004) (finding that “[u]nder rule 3.850, a defendant is entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing unless the motion and record conclusively show the defendant is not entitled to relief’); Gordon v. State, 608 So.2d 925, 925-26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (concluding that “when the trial court is confronted with the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a finding that some action or inaction by defense counsel was tactical is generally inappropriate, without an evi-dentiary hearing. Instead, counsel should be heard from, and, if necessary, cross-examined as to whether a decision truly was ‘tactical’ ”).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

903 So. 2d 290, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8504, 2005 WL 1338237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kiser-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack