MARTINEZ
v.
STATE
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 Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a lower court's denial of postconviction relief. The appellate court affirmed the denial of some claims but reversed and remanded one claim concerning ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress a wiretap, as the record did not conclusively refute the claim.
The appellate court held that the record did not conclusively refute Martinez's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the failure to file a motion to suppress the wiretap. Therefore, the summary denial of this specific claim was erroneous.
[1] A postconviction relief motion must be granted an evidentiary hearing unless the motion, files, and records conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief or the…
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on failure to file a motion to suppress require reversal of summary denial if the record does not conclusively refute the c…
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 intelligence“However, because the record does not conclusively refute Martinez’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the wiretap of his phone conversations, we reverse the summary denial of Ground One and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing.”
This quote explains the court's decision to reverse and remand the specific claim regarding the wiretap suppression.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManolo Martinez sought postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress …
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 Wiretap Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MANOLO MARTINEZ, Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-2461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed June 15, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet, Judge.
Rupak R. Shah, of Escobar & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Manolo Martinez appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds Two,
Three, and Four. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Martinez’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the wiretap of his phone conversations, we reverse the summary denial of Ground One and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary 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, BERGER and LAMBERT, 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)