Lethena Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lethena Smith v. State

192 So. 3d 651, 2016 WL 3032661, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8058

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 27, 2016

Docket5D16-3

StatusPublished

This text of 192 So. 3d 651 (Lethena Smith 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

Lethena Smith v. State, 192 So. 3d 651, 2016 WL 3032661, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8058 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lethena Smith appeals the final order entered by the trial court summarily denying her Florida Rule of Criminal-Procedure 3.850 motion for postconvietion relief. The motion alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel which resulted in Smith’s convictions on second-degree murder and aggravated battery. We affirm as to the denial of Smith’s first and fourth grounds for relief, but reverse as to the denial of her second ground for relief (failure to request DNA testing) and her third ground for relief (failure to introduce admissions of a witness) because the trial court failed to attach documents which conclusively refute those claims. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach documents sufficient to conclusively refute Smith’s second and third grounds for relief or to hold- an evi-dentiary healing thereon.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lethena Smith appeals the final order entered by the trial court summarily denying her Florida Rule of Criminal-Procedure 3.850 motion for postconvietion relief. The motion alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel which resulted in Smith’s convictions on second-degree murder and aggravated battery. We affirm as to the denial of Smith’s first and fourth grounds for relief, but reverse as to the denial of her second ground for relief (failure to request DNA testing) and her third ground for relief (failure to introduce admissions of a witness) because the trial court failed to attach documents which conclusively refute those claims. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach documents sufficient to conclusively refute Smith’s second and third grounds for relief or to hold- an evi-dentiary healing thereon.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 So. 3d 651, 2016 WL 3032661, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 8058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lethena-smith-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.