Smith v. State

Full title: CHARLES SMITH III, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

Date published: Jul 16, 2019

275 So. 3d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)

Opinion

No. 1D18-3907

07-16-2019

Charles SMITH III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Charles Smith III, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

BILBREY, J.

Charles Smith III, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

BILBREY, J.

Charles Smith III appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. In his motion, Appellant raised a Brady ^* violation and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to seek suppression, among other claims. Appellant alleged he would not have pled guilty had he known of the Brady violation or of the possibility of suppression of the testimony of certain witnesses. A Brady claim is cognizable in a postconviction motion. See Wickham v. State , 124 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 2013). Similarly, failure to seek suppression may be a basis for postconviction relief. See Douglas v. State , 67 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). While the trial court attached record excerpts to its order, these attachments do not conclusively refute the legally sufficient claims made in grounds one and three of the motion. Accordingly, Smith is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on these claims. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 ; see Freeman v. State , 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000).

*

The order denying relief is VACATED , and the cause is REMANDED for further proceedings.

Wolf and Osterhaus, JJ., concur.

Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).