Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Philome LEO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
We reverse in part the trial court's summary denial of appellant's motion for postconviction relief. We conclude that several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not conclusively refuted and require record attachments or an evidentiary hearing.
First, claims 4, 5, 6, and 7 all stated facially sufficient claims of ineffective assistance for failure to call witnesses. See Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004). These claims were not conclusively refuted by the attachments to the state's response which were incorporated into the order of denial.
Second, appellant alleges that counsel refused to allow him to testify and threatened and pressured him such that he feared counsel would abandon the case mid-trial if he did not follow counsel's advice. This, too, is not refuted by the record, because in the court's colloquy with appellant at trial regarding his “decision” not to testify, no inquiry was made about threats to withdraw. See Tyler v. State, 793 So.2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Third, appellant also makes a claim that his statement to the police should have been suppressed because of deficient Miranda warnings. See Roberts v. State, 874 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). This, too, is not conclusively refuted by the record.
Finally, appellant alleged that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek dismissal of counts two and three of the information as violative of double jeopardy. We agree that his allegations are legally sufficient as to count three but not as to count two. The claim as to count three requires the attachment of record evidence which conclusively refutes the allegations.
We reverse the summary denial and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the foregoing allegations we have identified as legally sufficient, or for an evidentiary hearing on these allegations. As to the other claims made by appellant, we affirm their summary denial.
PER CURIAM.
SHAHOOD, C.J., WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 4D06-4780.
Decided: July 18, 2007
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,Fourth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)