Case Name: Julius Erwing BLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-10-28
Citations: 202 So. 3d 466
Docket Number: No. 5D16-1952
Parties: Julius Erwing BLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PALMER, COHEN, and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 202
Pages: 466–467

Head Matter:
Julius Erwing BLACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D16-1952.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct. 28, 2016.
Julius Erwin Black, Wewahitchka, pro se.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Samuel Perrone, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Julius Black appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm as to Grounds One through Six and Eight through Ten. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Black's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to call co-defendant, Philip Snead, as a witness, we reverse the summary denial of Ground Seven and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting that claim or for an evidentiary hearing. See Freeman v. State, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla.2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evi-dentiary 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." (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla.1996))).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
PALMER, COHEN, and BERGER, JJ., concur.
. The trial court noted in its order that Snead was a co-defendant facing the same charges and awaiting trial at the time Black went to trial; however, there is nothing in the record that demonstrates Snead's charges were pending or that Snead invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Echevarria v. State, 976 So.2d 84, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Forte v. State, 189 So.3d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).