Filed: Jun. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MANOLO MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-2461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed June 15, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet, Judge. Rupak R. Shah, of Escobar & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorne
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED MANOLO MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-2461 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed June 15, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet, Judge. Rupak R. Shah, of Escobar & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
MANOLO MARTINEZ,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-2461
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed June 15, 2018
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Orange County,
Marc L. Lubet, Judge.
Rupak R. Shah, of Escobar & Associates,
P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant
Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Manolo Martinez 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 Two,
Three, and Four. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Martinez’s
claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the wiretap of his
phone conversations, we reverse the summary denial of Ground One 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 evidentiary 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.
SAWAYA, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
2