From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. State

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
Nov 2, 2018
257 So. 3d 153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 5D18-1762

11-02-2018

Richard E. HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Richard E. Harris, Cross City, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Richard E. Harris, Cross City, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Richard E. Harris, appeals a final order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion and an order denying his motion to amend his claims. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

In his motion, Appellant alleged, among other claims: (1) that his counsel suffered from a conflict of interest, (2) that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate several inconsistencies in the testimony of a key Williams rule witness when compared to the physical evidence, and (3) cumulative error. Appellant sufficiently alleged prejudice, asserting, for instance, in ground four that the result of the trial would have been different had his counsel attacked the credibility of the State's witness with the inconsistencies.

Williams v. State , 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959).

First, although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's request to raise new and untimely claims, the court did err when it denied Appellant's motion to amend his existing and timely raised claims. See Johnson v. State , 247 So.3d 698, 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ; Norris v. State , 198 So.3d 1036, 1038 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

Second, we conclude that the records attached to the trial court's order do not conclusively refute Appellant's amended claims in grounds three and four. Therefore, we reverse the summary denial of grounds three, four, and five and remand for the circuit court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant's amended claims or conduct an evidentiary hearing thereon.

Appellant filed his proposed amended motion before the trial court denied his motion to amend.
--------

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

WALLIS, EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Harris v. State

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
Nov 2, 2018
257 So. 3d 153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)
Case details for

Harris v. State

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD E. HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court:DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Date published: Nov 2, 2018

Citations

257 So. 3d 153 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)