Miller v. State

793 So. 2d 1141, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12829, 2001 WL 1035957
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 11, 2001·No. No. 1D00-2088·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order summarily denying a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850. We conclude that the trial court erred on one point. The allegation that defense counsel faded to present an available defense to the charge of robbery was sufficient to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. [1142]*1142See McKinney v. State, 722 So.2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The records attached to the order show that there was ample evidence the defendant had committed the act, but that does not refute the defendant’s argument that his lawyer should have presented an affirmative defense. Accordingly, we reverse on this point and remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing or attachment of records conclusively refuting the claim. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOOTH, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.

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

Miller v. State, 793 So. 2d 1141, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12829, 2001 WL 1035957 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

793 So. 2d 1141 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Long v. State
793 So. 2d 1141 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)