Larry Madison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Larry Madison v. State

200 So. 3d 148, 2016 WL 3125642, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8461

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 3, 2016

Docket5D15-3909

StatusPublished

This text of 200 So. 3d 148 (Larry Madison 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

Larry Madison v. State, 200 So. 3d 148, 2016 WL 3125642, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8461 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Larry Madison appeals the summary denial of his second amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, Two, and Three. 1 However, because the record does not conclusively refute Madison’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Four and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or *149 for an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentia-ry 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.” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.

PALMER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

. Madison raised six claims in his motion, three of which appear to overlap. The trial court addressed each, but identified only four in the order denying the motion. This opinion addresses the claims as numbered in the trial court’s order.

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

PER CURIAM.

Larry Madison appeals the summary denial of his second amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, Two, and Three. 1 However, because the record does not conclusively refute Madison’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Four and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or *149 for an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentia-ry 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.” (citations omitted)).

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.

PALMER, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

1

. Madison raised six claims in his motion, three of which appear to overlap. The trial court addressed each, but identified only four in the order denying the motion. This opinion addresses the claims as numbered in the trial court’s order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 So. 3d 148, 2016 WL 3125642, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-madison-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack