FREDERICK PHILLIP ROUSH, 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.
Frederick Roush appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during his jury trial on stolen property charges. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective assistance claim, finding that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion based on a plea waiver executed in a separate, prior fraud case.
The court held that Roush's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel sufficiently describe specific conduct that could constitute a substantial deficiency measurably below competent counsel performance, and that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion based on a plea waiver executed in an unrelated case. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the allegedly deficient conduct was so substantial as to create a reasonable probability of affecting the trial outcome.
[1] Allegations of specific conduct by trial counsel, such as failing to interview witnesses, inspect evidence, or meet with the client, may sufficiently describe a deficienc…
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a jury trial is distinct from a plea waiver and consent form executed in relation to a prior fraud charge.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“These allegations sufficiently describe specific conduct on the part of trial counsel which, if it occurred, could constitute "a substantial and serious deficiency measurably below that of competent counsel."”
Establishes that Roush's allegations meet the threshold for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoush's attorney allegedly failed to interview or depose defense witnesses whose names Roush provided, failed to inspect tangible evidence made availa…
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 Discovery Violations cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying Roush’s Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. In the motion, Roush contended that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred in failing to inquire into the circumstances surrounding an alleged discovery violation by the state as required by Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971). We remand for an evidentiary hearing on the question whether appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel.
In his motion for post-conviction relief the appellant alleged, inter alia, that his attorney failed to interview or depose defense witnesses whose names had been furnished to him by appellant, failed to inspect tangible evidence made available to the defense by the state pursuant to appellant’s demand for discovery, and failed to meet personally with appellant to discuss defense strategies and the posture of the case until the day of trial. These allegations sufficiently describe specific conduct on the part of trial counsel which, if it occurred, could constitute “a substantial and serious deficiency measurably below that of competent counsel.” Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981).
The court below, relying on Holloway v. State, 432 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and McCutcheon v. State, 444 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), summarily denied appellant’s claim on grounds that appellant had expressly indicated satisfaction with the performance of his attorney by executing a plea waiver and consent form. The court overlooked the fact that the plea agreement related to a prior fraud charge, whereas the instant claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is directed to the performance of the attorney who handled appellant’s jury trial on charges of dealing in stolen property. We therefore remand for an evidentiary hearing so that appellant may have an opportunity to prove the allegations of his motion and to prove, if he can, that the allegedly deficient conduct on the part of counsel was so substantial that there was a reasonable probability that it affected the outcome of the trial. Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1984).
The question of the alleged discovery violation need not be considered by the trial court, since the issue is one which could have and should have been raised in the direct appeal of appellant’s conviction.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
JOANOS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1984)
- Holloway v. State, 432 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Murry P. McCUTCHEON v. State, 444 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)