Narrative Opinion Summary
The Appellant filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, presenting three claims. The court affirmed claims one and three but reversed and remanded claim two for further proceedings. In claim two, the Appellant argued that counsel was ineffective for not requesting the trial judge's recusal after the judge disclosed an “active relationship” with the victim’s family and imposed a harsher sentence than what the State recommended. The court found the Appellant's allegations to be facially sufficient and not contradicted by the existing record, referencing Strickland v. Washington and relevant Florida judicial administration rules. The trial court is directed to either provide record evidence that conclusively disproves the Appellant's claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing. The decision concludes with a partial affirmation, partial reversal, and remand. Judges CLARK, WETHERELL, and RAY concur.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Court Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court's decision involves affirming certain claims while reversing and remanding another for further proceedings.
Reasoning: The court affirmed claims one and three but reversed and remanded claim two for further proceedings.
Facial Sufficiency of Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found the appellant's allegations regarding ineffective counsel to be facially sufficient, requiring further proceedings as they were not contradicted by the existing record.
Reasoning: The court found the Appellant's allegations to be facially sufficient and not contradicted by the existing record, referencing Strickland v. Washington and relevant Florida judicial administration rules.
Ineffective Assistance of Counselsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the appellant's claim that counsel was ineffective for not seeking the trial judge's recusal due to a disclosed relationship with the victim's family, which allegedly led to a harsher sentence.
Reasoning: In claim two, the Appellant argued that counsel was ineffective for not requesting the trial judge's recusal after the judge disclosed an 'active relationship' with the victim’s family and imposed a harsher sentence than what the State recommended.
Procedure for Addressing Ineffective Assistance Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court is instructed to either provide record evidence that conclusively disproves the appellant's claims of ineffective assistance or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Reasoning: The trial court is directed to either provide record evidence that conclusively disproves the Appellant's claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.