Case Name: Michael BLANCA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-11-15
Citations: 830 So. 2d 260
Docket Number: No. 5D02-2747
Parties: Michael BLANCA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 830
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
Michael BLANCA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D02-2747.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 15, 2002.
Michael Blanca, Polk City, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.

Opinion:
SHARP, W., J.
Blanca appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We find that all but one of the grounds asserted by Blanca are without merit. See Floyd v. State, 808 So.2d 175 (Fla.2002); Smith v. State, 742 So.2d 352, 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Issac v. State, 767 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
With regard to Blanca's claim that his counsel was ineffective for not interviewing and subpoenaing witnesses who could provide him with an alibi, this claim could have merited a hearing. He alleges he gave his counsel the names and addresses of three such witnesses, but none was called to testify. The trial court rejected this ground as facially insufficient, because Blanca failed to allege the witnesses were available to testify. Nelson v. State, 816 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's summary denial of Blanc's motion, but without prejudice to refile a facially sufficient motion raising counsel's failure to investigate and subpoena the alibi witnesses.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and PETERSON, JJ., concur.