Manolo Martinez v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.