REJI 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.
The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief on most grounds but reversed and remanded three grounds alleging ineffective assistance of counsel regarding detective testimony and failure to investigate a witness, as the record did not conclusively refute those claims.
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show no relief is warranted or the claim is legally insufficient.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no…
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 intelligenceReji Smith appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising nine grounds alleging i…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Reji Smith appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One, Four, Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine. The record, however, does not conclusively refute Grounds Two and Three, alleging that *619counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the detective’s testimony identifying Smith in the surveillance video and the still photographs and his testimony indicating that he had seen Smith, on a prior occasion, at the residence where the drug deal occurred, and Ground Five, alleging that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate, depose, and/or call Patricia Roka Cleveland to testify. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of Grounds Two, Three and Five and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting those claims or for an evi-dentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) (“[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient.” (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996))).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000)
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)