Squires v. State, 69003

Citation513 So.2d 138,12 Fla. L. Weekly 512
Decision Date01 October 1987
Docket NumberNo. 69003,69003
Parties12 Fla. L. Weekly 512 William Michael SQUIRES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida

Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative; Mark E. Olive, Litigation Director, and Billy H. Nolas, Staff Attorney of Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Candance M. Sunderland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This Court previously affirmed Squires' conviction and sentence of death. Squires v. State, 450 So.2d 208 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 892, 105 S.Ct. 268, 83 L.Ed.2d 204 (1984). We now have for review the denial of Squires' motion for postconviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution. Since the court neither held an evidentiary hearing nor attached any portion of the record to the order of denial, our review is limited to determining whether the motion on its face conclusively shows that Squires is entitled to no relief. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.

Squires raises several points on this appeal, only two of which merit any discussion. Squires claims that he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial attorney rendered him ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree, but only in so far as his claims relate to defense counsel's alleged failure to interview Donald Hynes as a possible defense witness and counsel's alleged failure to challenge Squires' incriminating statements made to law enforcement and correctional officers.

Squires additionally alleges that certain exculpatory materials were withheld from him by the state in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and that he should have been granted an evidentiary hearing on this issue as well. Again, we agree. Upon remand to the trial court, the judge shall explore the allegations of Brady violations, but only as they relate to the following two issues: first, whether Detective Peterson's deposition statements concerning Donald Hynes were misleading to the defense, and second, whether the state should have furnished the police report of Hynes' statement to the defense.

As to the other issues raised by Squires on this appeal, we have considered all of them and find each to be without merit. We therefore affirm as to those issues, but reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issues...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Squires v. Dugger
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • May 26, 1992
    ...Court. On October 1, 1987, the Florida Supreme Court remanded two claims to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. Squires v. State, 513 So.2d 138 (Fla.1987). First, the trial court was to examine whether Petitioner's trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing......
  • Squires v. Singletary, 90-848-CIV-T-17(C).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • April 8, 1993
    ...the Florida Supreme Court. Florida's highest court then remanded two claims to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. Squires v. State, 513 So.2d 138 (Fla.1987). The trial court thereafter examined whether Petitioner's trial attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failin......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 18, 1991
    ...So.2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).3 See Kennedy v. State, 547 So.2d 912 (Fla.1989); Gorham v. State, 521 So.2d 1067 (Fla.1988); Squires v. State, 513 So.2d 138 (Fla.1987); Harich v. State, 484 So.2d 1239 (Fla.1986).4 Griffin v. State, 573 So.2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Smothers v. State, 555 So......
  • Gorham v. State, 70428
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1988
    ...to determining whether the motion conclusively shows on its face that Gorham is entitled to no relief. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850; Squires v. State, 513 So.2d 138 (Fla.1987). Gorham first urges that the trial court should have either granted an evidentiary hearing regarding the State's alleged fai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT