Case Name: Charles SMITH III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2019-07-16
Citations: 275 So. 3d 843
Docket Number: No. 1D18-3907
Parties: Charles SMITH III, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 275
Pages: 843–843

Head Matter:
Charles SMITH III, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D18-3907
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 16, 2019
Charles Smith III, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
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).