Martin v. State

29 Citing cases

  1. Romaine v. State

    283 So. 3d 425 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    We review the postconviction court's summary denial of a claim of ineffective assistance de novo. Martin v. State, 205 So. 3d 811, 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). "In conducting that review, we accept the factual allegations of the defendant's motion as true unless they are conclusively refuted by the record, the relevant portions of which must be attached to the postconviction court's order."

  2. Jackson v. State

    No. 2D2023-2441 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2024)

    "Martin v. State, 205 So.3d 811, 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Jennings v. State, 123 So.3d 1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013)). "We may only affirm a postconviction court's summary denial if the record conclusively shows that the appellant is entitled to no relief."

  3. Bynum v. State

    377 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)

    [1, 2] "When reviewing the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief, this court applies de novo review and ‘must accept the movant’s factual allegations as true to the extent that they are not refuted by the record.’ " Martin v. State, 205 So. 3d 811, 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Jennings v. State, 123 So. 3d 1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013)). "[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient."

  4. Baeza v. State

    351 So. 3d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    We review de novo the postconviction court's summary denial of a claim of ineffective assistance. Martin v. State , 205 So. 3d 811, 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In conducting the review, "an appellate court must accept the defendant's factual allegations as true to the extent that such allegations are not refuted by the record."

  5. West v. State

    331 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)

    "When reviewing the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief, this court applies de novo review and ‘must accept the movant's factual allegations as true to the extent that they are not refuted by the record.’ " Martin v. State , 205 So. 3d 811, 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Jennings v. State , 123 So. 3d 1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013) ). To plead a facially sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must plead sufficient facts to establish that his counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by such deficiency.

  6. Happel v. State

    330 So. 3d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that the postconviction court erred in denying as speculative the movant's claim that trial counsel should have checked a surveillance video that would have supported the movant's contention that he had not fired a gun at a law enforcement officer

    These allegations, which we are bound to accept as true for the sake of our analysis, give rise to the question of whether the decision not to investigate the videos was a reasonable trial strategy. On the record before this court, we cannot answer this question without an evidentiary hearing. SeeMartin v. State , 205 So. 3d 811, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("[T]o conclude that an action or inaction taken by a trial attorney was a strategic decision generally requires an evidentiary hearing." (alternation in original) (quoting Hamilton v. State , 915 So. 2d 1228, 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) )); Long v. State , 214 So. 3d 800, 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (concluding that record attachments to the trial court's order neither "conclusively refute[d] Long's allegation regarding the existence of a surveillance video" nor "clearly establish[ed] that defense counsel's failure to obtain the surveillance video was a reasonable trial strategy").

  7. Cruz v. State

    262 So. 3d 244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)

    "When reviewing the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief, this court applies de novo review and ‘must accept the movant's factual allegations as true to the extent that they are not refuted by the record.’ " Martin v. State, 205 So.3d 811, 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Jennings v. State, 123 So.3d 1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013) ). "[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ; see also Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f).

  8. King v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.

    8:22-cv-659-SDM-SPF (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2025)

    In order for the Court to consider a claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to investigate, a defendant must make specific factual allegations regarding: (1) counsel's awareness of the need to investigate specific evidence, Henyard v. State, 883 So.2d 753, 762 (Fla. 2004); (2) the substance of the specific evidence that counsel should have discovered through an investigation but did not, Martin v. State, 205 So.3d 811, 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); and (3) an explanation of how counsel's failure to discover and present that specific evidence prejudiced the outcome of trial, cf. Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 582-83 (Fla. 2004) (stating the same standard for omitted witness testimony). In his initial motion, Defendant alleged only that counsel should have deposed some witnesses to develop some facts that could be used for impeachment, without identifying those witnesses or what information those depositions would have revealed, or explaining how that information, used for impeachment, would have led to his acquittal.

  9. Reyna-Duran v. State

    No. 6D2023-1876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2024)

    Because the postconviction court summarily denied ground two of Reyna-Duran's motion for postconviction relief, we apply the de novo standard of review; and we "must accept the movant's factual allegations as true to the extent that they are not refuted by the record." Martin v. State, 205 So.3d 811, 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (quoting Jennings v. State, 123 So.3d 1101, 1121 (Fla. 2013)).

  10. Parks v. State

    No. 2D2022-0987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May. 15, 2024)

    To plead a facially sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must allege sufficient facts to establish that his trial counsel's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced thereby. Martin v. State, 205 So.3d 811, 812 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). The rule requires that the movant "include . . . a brief statement of the facts and other conditions relied on in support of the motion."