Moss v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Moss v. State

266 So. 3d 880

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 2019

DocketCase No. 5D18-1506

StatusPublished

This text of 266 So. 3d 880 (Moss 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

Moss v. State, 266 So. 3d 880 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Clovis Moss, appeals the final order entered by the postconviction court denying his motion for postconviction relief. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. In the motion, Appellant argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness at trial that would have undermined the victim's credibility. In summarily denying this ground, the postconviction court noted that the trial court had excluded the testimony referenced by Appellant and, therefore, counsel had no basis to call the witness. However, the record attached to the summary denial does not conclusively refute Appellant's claim as it does not reveal the source, nature, or extent of the trial court's evidentiary ruling.

Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of this ground for relief and remand for the postconviction court to either attach sufficient records to support the summary denial or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Hird v. State, 204 So.3d 483, 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Burgos v. State, 181 So.3d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, HARRIS, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Clovis Moss, appeals the final order entered by the postconviction court denying his motion for postconviction relief. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. In the motion, Appellant argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness at trial that would have undermined the victim's credibility. In summarily denying this ground, the postconviction court noted that the trial court had excluded the testimony referenced by Appellant and, therefore, counsel had no basis to call the witness. However, the record attached to the summary denial does not conclusively refute Appellant's claim as it does not reveal the source, nature, or extent of the trial court's evidentiary ruling.

Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of this ground for relief and remand for the postconviction court to either attach sufficient records to support the summary denial or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Hird v. State, 204 So.3d 483, 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Burgos v. State, 181 So.3d 572 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, HARRIS, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 So. 3d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack