Suggs v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Suggs v. State

845 So. 2d 261, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6720, 2003 WL 21033712

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 2003

DocketNo. 2D02-4403

StatusPublished

This text of 845 So. 2d 261 (Suggs 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

Suggs v. State, 845 So. 2d 261, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6720, 2003 WL 21033712 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

COVINGTON, Judge.

David Suggs appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of postconviction relief as to all claims contained in the motion except two that we believe warrant additional consideration. In his first claim for relief, Mr. Suggs alleges a colorable claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for lack of [262]*262diligence in questioning a juror, Ms. Chaplin, during voir dire. See Monson v. State, 750 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Lambrix v. State, 559 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla.1990). In his ninth claim for relief, Mr. Suggs alleges a colorable claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or call two exculpatory witness. See Honors v. State, 752 So.2d 1234, 1235-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509, 514-15 (Fla.1999). Because these two claims are facially sufficient and the record does not show “conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order [is] reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing,” Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D), as to these issues. See also Waters v. State, 779 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.

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

COVINGTON, Judge.

David Suggs appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of postconviction relief as to all claims contained in the motion except two that we believe warrant additional consideration. In his first claim for relief, Mr. Suggs alleges a colorable claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for lack of [262]*262diligence in questioning a juror, Ms. Chaplin, during voir dire. See Monson v. State, 750 So.2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Lambrix v. State, 559 So.2d 1137, 1138 (Fla.1990). In his ninth claim for relief, Mr. Suggs alleges a colorable claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or call two exculpatory witness. See Honors v. State, 752 So.2d 1234, 1235-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509, 514-15 (Fla.1999). Because these two claims are facially sufficient and the record does not show “conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order [is] reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing,” Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D), as to these issues. See also Waters v. State, 779 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and KELLY, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

845 So. 2d 261, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6720, 2003 WL 21033712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suggs-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack