MICHAEL MADRY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Trial court's summary denial of post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel motion reversed because the allegations, if proven, would constitute ineffective assistance and required an evidentiary hearing.
A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel when the allegations, if proven, would constitute ineffective assistance.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel when the motion alleges specific instances of cou…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Madry was convicted by jury of multiple felonies and sentenced. He filed a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.8…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jury Composition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Madry was convicted in a trial by jury of a number of felonies and sentenced.
Madry then filed a motion for post conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging ineffectiveness of trial counsel. This motion was summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing. Madry appeals. We reverse and remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing upon Madry’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Madry’s motion for post-conviction relief was based on these grounds:
1. Trial counsel refused to allow appellant to testify on his own behalf in his defense.
2. Trial counsel told appellant he had no right to represent himself.
3. Trial counsel failed to move to dismiss the “invalid” information (appellant claims that the Assistant State Attorney had no authority to sign said information, thus making it invalid).
4. The trial counsel failed to object to an all-white jury.
In our opinion sufficient grounds were presented as to merit an evidentiary hearing. Moreover, the State’s response did not meet or refute Madry’s allegations and there were no attachments to the denial order showing that Madry was entitled to no relief.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.