FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Mark S. Blechman,
Castro, Mayo, pro se.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan,
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Castro appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief.
Castro raised eight grounds for relief in his motion. We
affirm, without further discussion, the postconviction
court's denial of Grounds One through Seven. As to Ground
Eight, for the reasons explained below, we reverse for the
lower court to either hold an evidentiary hearing or attach
additional court records to its order to conclusively refute
was convicted after trial of trafficking in hydrocodone in
excess of twenty-eight grams. Construing the trial evidence
in the light most favorable to the State, a confidential
informant working under the direct supervision of the Drug
Enforcement Agency purchased 2000 hydrocodone pills from
Castro at a prearranged meeting in the parking lot of a
tattoo parlor for the sum of $4000. In Ground Eight of his
motion, Castro alleged that his trial counsel rendered
ineffective assistance because he did not call Castro's
wife to testify at trial as an alibi witness. Castro states
that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure because his
wife was available and willing to testify at trial and, if
called, would have said that she was with Castro on both the
day the drug transaction was negotiated and then on the day
that it was consummated and that Castro was not present for
either event, as she and Castro "never left each
other's company." Castro averred that if trial
counsel had called his wife to testify, the jury "would
have found her to be more credible than the paid felon
[confidential] informant who (testified against Castro and)
was being compensated for his role in [Castro's] arrest,
" and the jury would have found him not guilty.
summarily denying this claim, the postconviction court
attached to its order a portion of the trial transcript where
the following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: Mr. Castro, I ask every defendant at this point in
time: Are you satisfied with the services that you received
from [trial counsel]?
[THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Is there anything that you told him to do and he
THE DEFENDANT: No, Sir.
denial order, the court found that this dialogue sufficiently
"refute[d] [Castro's] claim that he wanted counsel
to call his wife as an alibi witness."
failure to call a witness can constitute ineffective
assistance of counsel if the witness might be able to cast
doubt on the defendant's guilt." Gutierrez v.
State, 27 So.3d 192, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing
Ford v. State, 825 So.2d 358, 360-61 (Fla. 2002);
Spellers v. State, 993 So.2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2008)). Here, Castro set forth a facially sufficient
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because he alleged
the identity of the potential witness, the substance of the
witness's testimony, how the omission of the testimony
prejudiced him, and that the witness was available for trial.
See Spellers, 993 So.2d at 1118. A defendant is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim that counsel
was ineffective for failing to call a witness to testify