BRIAN SCOTT BRIDGES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault was reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel failed to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense despite evidence of substantial intoxication.
Trial counsel's failure to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense, which is a complete defense to aggravated assault as a specific intent crime, constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel warranting reversal and new trial.
[1] Voluntary intoxication is a complete defense to aggravated assault as a specific intent crime, and counsel's failure to pursue this defense despite evidence of substantia…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“competent counsel would have pursued an intoxication defense”
Court's conclusion regarding counsel's failure to pursue available defense despite evidence of intoxication
Defendant was charged with aggravated assault, trespass, and discharging a firearm in public stemming from a bar fight. Witnesses described him as "be…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Specific Intent Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant appeals from the denial of his Motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which asserted ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree that he did not receive effective assistance and reverse and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault charges.
Defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated assault, trespass, and discharging a firearm in public, stemming from a bar fight. He asserts that he was ineffectively represented because his counsel failed to pursue a defense of voluntary intoxication, which is a complete defense to the specific intent crime of aggravated assault. Mellins v. State, 395 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). At the motion hearing, his counsel explained that he did not feel defendant’s intoxication “met the statutory criteria for a jury instruction.” Yet there was evidence that defendant had been drinking for several hours, and that he was described by witnesses as being “berserk” - “unstable” “half-there” and “a whole lot strung out.” We feel that in light of this, competent counsel would have pursued an intoxication defense. Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the aggravated assault charges only. In all other respects the conviction is affirmed.
LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.