Case Name: Allen Lee DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2018-02-16
Citations: 245 So. 3d 861
Docket Number: Case No. 5D17–3239
Parties: Allen Lee DAVIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 245
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
Allen Lee DAVIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Case No. 5D17-3239
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed February 16, 2018
Allen L. Davis, Lowell, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Allen Davis appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his first claim, Davis alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress certain incriminating statements that Davis had made to a detective. In summarily denying the claim, the trial court relied on the detective's trial testimony to determine that a motion to suppress would have been fruitless. However, the record does not conclusively refute Davis' claim that his statements were made during a custodial interrogation, during which he was not advised of his Miranda rights. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court must either attach records conclusively refuting this claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. We affirm, without discussion, the summary denial of the remainder of Davis' claims.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
PALMER, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).