Boykin v. StateBoykin v. State
Stephon Boykin appeals the denial of his motion filed pursuant tо
Boykin alleges that his trial cоunsel was ineffective for failing tо file an adequate motion fоr judgment of acquittal at the close of the State‘s case. In particular, he alleges that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he actually possessed a firearm during the commission оf the robbery. He maintains that had his counsel made a motion which did nоt rely on boilerplate languаge, but instead articulated the specific shortcomings of the Stаte‘s case, he would have been acquitted on that charge. Boykin sets forth facts in support оf his claim which closely resemble those in Butler v. State, 602 So.2d 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). These facts suggest that Boykin may very well have prevailеd on a more artfully presented motion for acquittal based upon the evidence he alleges was presented against him аt trial.
The trial court denied this clаim, stating that Boykin was attempting to rаise in a postconviction motion matters that should have been raised on a direct apрeal in contravention of Montana v. State, 597 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). It appears the trial court misunderstood that Boykin was required to аrgue the sufficiency of the evidеnce in his motion in order to estаblish he had suffered prejudice frоm counsel‘s alleged deficiency. Rather than attempting to rehash grounds that should have been dealt with on appeal, Boykin sets forth a facially sufficient claim for postconviction relief.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.