From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 22, 2007
958 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Summary

reversing summary denial of claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to convictions for two counts of robbery involving only one victim and one episode, where record did not conclusively refute the claim

Summary of this case from Mullins v. State

Opinion

No. 2D06-4839.

June 22, 2007.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Anthony K. Black, J.


Brandon A. Brown appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The postconviction court treated the motion as filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and summarily denied the motion on the merits. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

After entering a non-negotiated guilty plea, Brown was sentenced on sundry charges that included four counts of robbery. In his motion for postconviction relief, Brown raised two claims. First, he contended that his double jeopardy rights were violated because two of the robbery convictions, under counts four and five, involved only one victim during one criminal episode. Second, Brown asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to research his double jeopardy claim and to object to the violation. The postconviction court, relying on the information setting forth the charges against Brown, determined that the two counts involved two separate victims and supported two separate robbery convictions. Therefore, the postconviction court concluded that Brown's convictions and sentences under both counts did not violate his double jeopardy rights and that counsel was not ineffective.

The order summarily denying Brown's motion for relief included no attachments, such as a plea colloquy transcript, to refute Brown's claim that the two counts stemmed from only one robbery involving only one victim. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial and remand for further proceedings. If, on remand, the post-conviction court again summarily denies Brown's motion, it shall attach to its order portions of the record demonstrating that Brown is not entitled to relief. Otherwise, the court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on his claims.

We note that Brown provided this court with a statement by the victim alleged in count five of the information which indicates that the victim merely observed the robbery from the convenience store's back room.

Reversed and remanded.

STRINGER and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Brown v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 22, 2007
958 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

reversing summary denial of claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to convictions for two counts of robbery involving only one victim and one episode, where record did not conclusively refute the claim

Summary of this case from Mullins v. State
Case details for

Brown v. State

Case Details

Full title:Brandon A. BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jun 22, 2007

Citations

958 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

Citing Cases

Mullins v. State

Id.; see also Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206, 1209–1210 (Fla.1997) (noting that defendant could not be…

Demps v. State

In this case, appellant made an open plea to the court. Therefore, the claim that trial counsel was…