Opinion ID: 1708131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: facial sufficiency

Text: Both the trial court and the district court in this case appear to have mixed the first two procedural stages of rule 3.850, i.e., they have combined the issue of a claim's facial sufficiency with the issue of whether the claim is conclusively refuted by the record. In addressing the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call alibi witnesses, the trial court expressly denied the motion based on facial insufficiency. In doing so, however, the court relied upon the overwhelming evidence against the defendant  a clear indication that the court had reviewed not only facial sufficiency of the claim itself, but also the record of the trial. The court also cited Cooley v. State, 642 So.2d 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), for the proposition that counsel is not ineffective where there is ample evidence contradicting the testimony the witness would have given  another sign that the court was relying on the contents of the record, rather than the facial sufficiency of the claim, to deny the motion. [1] The Third District's opinion appears to have repeated the trial court's mistake in its analysis. In holding that the defendant's claim was facially insufficient, the district court stated that [a]lthough the defendant claims these witnesses would have testified that he was in their home at the time of the crime, other eyewitness testimony placed the defendant at the scene of the crime and there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's burglary of the unoccupied dwelling. Jacobs v. State, 800 So.2d 322, 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The court also noted the abundance of evidence contradicting [the witnesses'] testimony. Id. at 324. These statements indicate the district court, too, looked not at the legal sufficiency of the allegations of the motion, but to the record to refute the claim.