Charles Smith III v. State of Florida , 275 So. 3d 843 ( 2019 )

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D18-3907
_____________________________
CHARLES SMITH III,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Steven B. Whittington, Judge.
July 16, 2019
BILBREY, J.
Charles Smith III appeals the summary denial of his motion
for postconviction relief. In his motion, Appellant raised a Brady ∗
violation and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure
to seek suppression, among other claims. Appellant alleged he
would not have pled guilty had he known of the Brady violation or
of the possibility of suppression of the testimony of certain
witnesses. A Brady claim is cognizable in a postconviction motion.
See Wickham v. State, 124 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 2013). Similarly, failure
to seek suppression may be a basis for postconviction relief. See
Douglas v. State, 67 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). While the
∗
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
trial court attached record excerpts to its order, these attachments
do not conclusively refute the legally sufficient claims made in
grounds one and three of the motion. Accordingly, Smith is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing on these claims. Fla. R. Crim.
P. 3.850; see Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000).
The order denying relief is VACATED, and the cause is
REMANDED for further proceedings.
WOLF and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Charles Smith III, pro se, Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2