Opinion ID: 2492624
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Trial Court's Summary Denial of Several Claims

Text: Johnston also argues that the lower court erred in refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing on several postconviction claims that required factual determination. We disagree. The lower court correctly concluded that Johnston was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on various ineffective assistance claims he raised in his postconviction motion below, [9] because his allegations were facially insufficient. A hearing is warranted on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim only where a defendant alleges specific facts, not conclusively rebutted by the record, which demonstrate a deficiency in counsel's performance that prejudiced the defendant. Pagan v. State, 29 So.3d 938, 955 (Fla.2009). Because Johnston presented only bare conclusory allegations on these several issues, he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the claims. Therefore, the lower court did not err in summarily denying these legally insufficient claims, and Johnston is not entitled to relief. See Hannon v. State, 941 So.2d 1109, 1138 (Fla.2006).