HOLLAND v. STATE (2024)

Appellant appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, which raised multiple issues of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm as to all issues except his ineffective assistance of counsel claim for trial counsel's failure to investigate and call an alibi witness, appellant's employer. The motion was facially sufficient as appellant:

(i) identified the witness; (ii) specified the content of [his] testimony; (iii) alleged that [he] was available to testify at trial; and (iv) sufficiently alleged that failure to call [him] to testify resulted in prejudice. Youmans v. State, 222 So. 3d 1, 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). With respect to prejudice, we note that “the mere existence of evidence of guilt is insufficient to conclusively rebut a claim of ineffectiveness in failing to present evidence of innocence in the form of known and available alibi witnesses.” Jacobs v. State, 880 So. 2d 548, 555 (Fla. 2004).

McCullough v. State, 247 So. 3d 6, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

In this case, appellant alleged that his employer would have testified that appellant was at work on the day of the attempted murder for which appellant was convicted, which would have contradicted the State's eyewitness testimony. The record is insufficient to support a summary denial as to this issue. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

Per Curiam.

Warner, Damoorgian and Ciklin, JJ., concur.