JOHNNY L. WELCH, v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOHNNY L. WELCH, Appellant, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D12-269 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed October 5, 2012. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Levy County. Mark W. Moseley, Judge. Johnny L. Welch, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay Kubica, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Johnny L. Welch appeals the summary denial of his Amended Postconviction Motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Welch raises twelve issues on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings. We reverse and remand the circuit court s summary denial of claim C in Welch s amended post-conviction motion, arguing that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to obtain the name of and any other information regarding the confidential informant that testified for the state at trial. See State v. LaBron, 24 So. 3d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (providing that the state has a limited privilege to withhold the identity of a confidential informant and providing instances where disclosure is required). In summarily denying this claim, the circuit court reasoned that the state did disclose the existence of a confidential informant,1 that Welch testified at trial that he knew the confidential informant, and that the transaction was captured on video. While all of the above may be true, it does not refute Welch s assertions that he did not know the identity of the confidential informant before he saw her in the courtroom on the day of the trial and that the identity of the confidential informant is not revealed on the video. Accordingly, with respect to claim C, we remand for the circuit court to attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the allegations or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the remaining issues raised by Welch without discussion. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. BENTON, C.J., LEWIS and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR. 1 The State s Supplemental Exhibit disclosed that the state intended to call CI#426 as a witness. 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.
