CHARLESTON GRINER, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in denying post-conviction relief for specific claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] A post-conviction relief motion must be denied if its claims are procedurally barred or facially insufficient.
[2] Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to object to improper prosecutorial comment warrant post-conviction relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, including failure to object to prosecutorial comment and failure t…
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 Prosecutorial Comment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Charleston Griner, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and one claim of alleged trial court error. Several of the claims are either procedurally barred or facially insufficient to demonstrate a basis for post-conviction relief. However, we find it necessary to reverse the trial court’s ruling with regard to appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel allegations based on his counsel’s alleged failure to object to improper prosecutorial comment, and failure to advise of a possible intoxication defense.
The trial court in this case thoroughly addressed each of the claims raised in appellant’s motion, and set forth detailed reasons for denying the relief sought. In addition, the order includes numerous citations to specific portions of the record to support the trial court’s findings, together with extensive quotations from the prosecutor’s closing argument, to support the court’s view that when read in context, the prosecutor’s remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial.
The specific recitations of the order suggest the record fully supports the trial court’s reasons for denying the motion for post-conviction relief. In such circumstances, we are loath to disturb any of the trial court’s rulings. Nevertheless, when the allegations of a post-conviction motion are facially sufficient to warrant-relief, the rule requires attachment of portions of the record which conclusively refute the defendant’s claims, or an evidentiary hearing thereon.
Accordingly, we must reverse and remand with directions to attach portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to failure to object to alleged prosecutorial improprieties, and failure to advise appellant of a possible intoxication defense. In all other respects, the appealed order is affirmed.
JOANOS, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.