Robert H. Harris 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 ROBERT HUGHES HARRIS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-3587 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 23, 2018 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Leticia J. Marques, Judge. Robert Hughes Harris, Raiford, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Robert Harris 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, Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight. However, because the record does not conclusively refute Harris’s sufficiently pled claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to ask for an alibi instruction, we reverse the summary denial of Ground One and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting this 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))). We also reverse the summary denial of Ground Three, regarding counsel’s alleged misleading advice on Harris’s right to testify, and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Simon v. State, 47 So. 3d 883, 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (concluding evidentiary hearing is usually necessary to determine whether counsel’s advice not to testify is deficient). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. BERGER, LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, 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.