Filed: Feb. 12, 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 ALLEN LEE DAVIS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-3239 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed February 16, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet, Judge. Allen L. Davis, Lowell, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Allen Davis appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconvict
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 ALLEN LEE DAVIS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-3239 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed February 16, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet, Judge. Allen L. Davis, Lowell, pro se. No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Allen Davis appeals the summary denial of his amended motion for postconvicti..
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
ALLEN LEE DAVIS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-3239
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed February 16, 2018
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Orange County,
Marc L. Lubet, Judge.
Allen L. Davis, Lowell, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
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 Miranda1 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.
1 Miranda v. Arizona,
384 U.S. 436 (1966).
2