ERNEST BLANCO, JR., A/K/A ANIBAL RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Ernest Blanco appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed the trial judge's denial because the judge failed to attach case files to refute Blanco's allegations or order the state to respond, as required by procedural rules.
The court reversed the summary denial because the trial judge failed to follow proper procedure under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 by not attaching case files to refute the allegations or ordering the state to respond. The court remanded for the trial court to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required after the state files a responsive answer.
[1] A trial court must attach portions of the files or records to its order denying a motion for post-conviction relief if the motion is denied without an evidentiary hearing…
[2] Evidence tending to show a lack of capacity to form specific intent may be vital to a defense for crimes requiring specific intent, such as robbery and attempted first-de…
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“Robbery and attempted first degree murder, the crimes for which Blanco was convicted, require specific intent and evidence tending to show a lack of capacity to form such intent may have been vital to Blanco's defense.”
Establishes that the crimes require specific intent and that evidence of inability to form specific intent is potentially vital evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBlanco was convicted of robbery and attempted first-degree murder. He filed a post-conviction motion alleging his trial counsel was ineffective becaus…
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 Strickland Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1375] PER CURIAM.
Ernest Blanco, Jr., appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although the trial judge denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, he did not attach to his denial any portion of the files or records to refute the appellant’s allegations.
Blanco alleges that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective because he: (1) failed to assert that at the time of the commission of the crime Blanco was so intoxicated that he lacked the mental capacity to form the specific intent to commit murder or robbery; (2) failed to have Blan-co examined or treated to restore his memory of the crime charged which Blanco had told his counsel he could not remember because he was so intoxicated; and, (3) failed to subpoena witnesses who would have testified as to Blanco’s “growing psychotic character” and his “ingestation (sic) of increasingly larger quantities of drugs of all kinds” which might have been evidence mitigating specific intent.
Robbery and attempted first degree murder, the crimes for which Blanco was convicted, require specific intent and evidence tending to show a lack of capacity to form such intent may have been vital to Blanco’s defense. Smith v. State, 461 So. 2d 991, 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706, 709 (Fla.1967); see also Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262, 1264 (Fla.1985). If Blanco’s allegations are true he may have satisfied the requirements of Knight and Strickland in order to show ineffective assistance of counsel. Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Certainly, we are unable to say that Blanco has not met the Knight/Strickland tests since the trial judge did not attach records or files to his order denying relief, nor did the judge order the state to respond to Blanco’s allegations. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion and remand the case to the trial court. On remand, unless the trial court can attach files and records of the case showing conclusively that Blanco is entitled to no relief, the court shall order the state attorney to file an answer within a time certain. After receiving the answer, the court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the court should again deny appellant’s motion, appellant has thirty days in which to appeal.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1985)
- Cirack v. State, 201 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1967)
- Smith v. State, 461 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)