Edwards v. State
859 So. 2d 538 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2003
The trial court’s order denying Edwards’s post-conviction motion is affirmed. As to his claim that his attorney was ineffective for failing to call certain witnesses, in order to set forth a facially sufficient claim, a post-conviction motion must allege that the witness was available to testify. See Catis v. State, 741 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 735 So.2d 1284 (Fla.1999); Nelson v. State, 816 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Puig v. State, 636 So.2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Highsmith v. State, 617 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Accordingly, we certify conflict with Odom v. State, 770 So.2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
