JAMEL A. SMITH, 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.
Jamel Smith appealed the summary denial of his three-claim motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call alibi witnesses. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of two claims but reversed and remanded the first claim, finding Smith had made a facially sufficient showing of ineffective assistance regarding the alibi witnesses.
The court held that Smith sufficiently alleged ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the alibi witnesses and was entitled to either an opportunity to amend his motion pursuant to Spera v. State or an evidentiary hearing. The trial court erred in concluding that the alibi witnesses could not have accounted for Smith's whereabouts when one witness (his sister) had averred he was with her when the crime occurred.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a witness, unless the claim is c…
[2] A motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call alibi witnesses may be amended to include sworn statements of witness av…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If a motion presents a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a witness, the movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the motion is conclusively refuted by the record or is otherwise procedurally barred.”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating ineffective assistance claims based on failure to call witnesses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was convicted of a crime and filed a postconviction motion alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call three alibi witnesses.…
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
Appellant, Jamel Smith, appeals the summary denial of his three-claim motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the summary denial of Smith’s second and third claims without further discussion, but reverse that portion of the order summarily denying Smith’s first claim. In that claim, Smith alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call three alibi witnesses. Smith supported the motion with affidavits from two of the purported witnesses, as well as his own affidavit. The trial court correctly noted that Smith did not include in his affidavit any sworn statement that the witnesses were available to testify. To the extent that this was the basis for the trial court’s denial, Smith should have been given an opportunity to amend his motion. See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007). The trial court also discussed the affidavits and concluded that the testimony would not have made a difference at trial, in part based upon the judge’s conclusion that none of the witnesses actually accounted for Smith’s whereabouts at the time of the crime for which Smith was convicted. Contrary to *1207the trial court’s conclusion, one purported witness, Smith’s sister, averred that Smith was with her (at her apartment) at the same time that the charged crime was taking place (at another location). We conclude that between the motion and affidavits, Smith sufficiently alleged' that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call the purported witnesses. “If a motion presents a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a "witness, the movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing unless the motion is conclusively refuted by the record or is otherwise procedurally barred.” Gutierrez v. State, 27 So.3d 192, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). “The purpose of the evidentiary hearing is to determine whether trial counsel acted reasonably in not presenting the alleged exculpatory evidence.” Perez v. State, 128 So.3d 223, 226-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). On remand, the trial court is directed to either grant Smith leave to amend his first claim, pursuant to Spera, or grant an evidentiary hearing on the claim.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
TORPY, C.J., LAWSON, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Gutierrez v. State, 27 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Perez v. State, 128 So. 3d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)