Reed v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Reed v. State

113 So. 3d 112, 2013 WL 2149631, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8038

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 17, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-5738

StatusPublished

This text of 113 So. 3d 112 (Reed 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

Reed v. State, 113 So. 3d 112, 2013 WL 2149631, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8038 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert K. Reed appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s denial of claims one, three, four, five, and six. However, as to the second claim, we reverse.

In the instant postconviction motion, the appellant argued in his second claim for relief that his attorney provided ineffective assistance in failing to call a witness who could have testified in support of his claim of self-defense. The appellant set forth a facially sufficient claim pursuant to Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 583 (Fla.2004), and as the state concedes on appeal, the trial court’s order does not contain any record attachments that conclusively refute the appellant’s entitlement to relief.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s second claim for the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur,

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert K. Reed appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking postconviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm, without comment, the postconviction court’s denial of claims one, three, four, five, and six. However, as to the second claim, we reverse.

In the instant postconviction motion, the appellant argued in his second claim for relief that his attorney provided ineffective assistance in failing to call a witness who could have testified in support of his claim of self-defense. The appellant set forth a facially sufficient claim pursuant to Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 583 (Fla.2004), and as the state concedes on appeal, the trial court’s order does not contain any record attachments that conclusively refute the appellant’s entitlement to relief.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand the trial court’s order denying the appellant’s second claim for the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or to hold an evidentiary hearing.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

PADOVANO, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 So. 3d 112, 2013 WL 2149631, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack