CARTER DEAN HEUTON, 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.
Carter Heuton appealed the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate two potentially helpful witnesses. The court affirmed the denial of most claims as inappropriate for collateral attack but reversed and remanded the ineffective assistance claim because the trial court's reliance on a notice of deposition did not conclusively refute the allegation that the deposition was not actually taken.
The court held that Heuton's claim of ineffective assistance was facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the mere notice of deposition. The trial court's reliance on a scheduled deposition did not prove the deposition was undertaken, and Heuton was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this claim.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to investigate potentially helpful witnesses is facially sufficient for postconviction relief if not con…
[2] A notice of deposition scheduled but not shown to have been undertaken does not conclusively refute a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to depose a w…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The notice of deposition does not conclusively refute appellant's claim; at best it establishes that the deposition was scheduled, not that it was undertaken.”
Establishes that a scheduled deposition is insufficient to defeat an ineffective assistance claim without proof the deposition actually occurred.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHeuton was convicted of robbery. A police report indicated that someone told the responding officer that there was a black man with a gun in the store…
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 Conclusively Refuted By The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
[*481] PER CURIAM.
Carter Heuton appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
In his motion appellant raised numerous claims, the vast majority of which are not cognizable in a collateral attack upon a conviction. We affirm the trial court on those issues inappropriate for postconviction relief.
Appellant alleged in his motion that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate two potentially helpful witnesses. To his motion he appended a police report which indicated that someone told the responding officer that there was a black man with a gun in the store that had been reported robbed. Appellant is white.
Additionally the report identified a woman who purportedly saw a man acting suspiciously near a car which matched the description of appellant’s automobile, and she described him as “small.” Appellant described himself as over six feet tall, weighing one hundred-eighty pounds.
Appellant contended that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to depose the officer, and otherwise to follow up on witnesses who might have been helpful to him in a case with little eyewitness testimony.
The trial court in denying the motion appended a defense notice of taking deposition from the court file which included a scheduled deposition from the officer who authored the police report.
The notice of deposition does not conclusively refute appellant’s claim; at best it establishes that the deposition was scheduled, not that it was undertaken. A similar tack was taken by the trial judge in Rogers v. State, 652 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), where a notice of deposition and witness list from the court file were appended to the order denying Rogers’ motion to vacate his conviction. He had sought to vacate his conviction alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate adequately an alibi witness he had provided to his attorney. In Rogers, 652 So. 2d at 973, the court reversed, finding the motion facially sufficient, and not conclusively refuted by the record. An evidentiary hearing was ordered.
We conclude that appellant’s claim is facially sufficient and reverse. On remand the trial court is free to supplement the record if there are materials available which in fact conclusively refute Heuton’s allegations. If not, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
Any party aggrieved by any subsequent decision of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 729 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…ent establishes that Johnson could not identify alibi witnesses at the time the private investigators interviewed him. It does not establish that Johnson never informed his counsel of potential alibi witnesses at any other time. See Heuton v. State, 659 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Moreover, the narrative contained in the billing statement was not a part of the “motions, files and records” of this case. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d). The facts contained in the narrative were never introduced into evidence.…
Authorities Cited
- Lydell Coring Rogers v. State, 652 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)