QUINCY JONES vs STATE OF FLORIDA
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 QUINCY JONES, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D18-2291 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed December 6, 2019 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John Marshall Kest, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Shawna R. Moyers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Quincy Jones appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the records attached to the order do not conclusively refute Jones’s claim in Ground Six that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to notify the trial court during the trial of a discovery violation and request a Richardson1 hearing on the State’s alleged coercion of James Phillips’s testimony,2 we reverse the order under review and remand for attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting Jones’s claim, or in the absence of such records, 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 affirm in all other respects. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED. ORFINGER and HARRIS, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur. 1 Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771, 774–75 (Fla. 1971). 2 In Ground Six, Jones alleged, among other things, that he informed trial counsel of the purported discovery violation on the morning of the second day of trial. Trial counsel’s statement at the sentencing hearing, which the trial court ruled showed that trial counsel learned of the alleged discovery violation after the trial concluded, is too ambiguous to conclusively refute Jones’s allegation on this point. 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.
