JUAN CINTRON, 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.
Juan Cintron appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to suppress his confession allegedly made without adequate Miranda warnings. The appellate court reverses and remands because the trial court relied on an affidavit contradicting Cintron's allegations without providing him an evidentiary hearing to confront the evidence.
The appellate court held that when a defendant's sworn allegations in a postconviction motion are contradicted by an affidavit, the affidavit functions as testimony that must be subject to confrontation at an evidentiary hearing rather than being considered on a motion without a hearing.
[1] A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief when the motion raises a genuine dispute as to material facts that cannot be resol…
[2] An affidavit contradicting a defendant's sworn allegations in a motion for postconviction relief requires an evidentiary hearing at which the defendant may confront the a…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The affidavit serves as the functional equivalent of testimony which is contradictory to the allegations sworn as true by Cintron's motion. As such, it ought to have been subject to confrontation by Cintron at an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the core holding that affidavits contradicting sworn allegations require an evidentiary hearing with opportunity for confrontation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCintron was convicted in 1978. He filed a postconviction motion alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress a confessio…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Juan Cintron appeals from the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief.
Initially this court reviewed Cintron’s entire motion and found possible merit in only one of the several issues raised therein. Cintron alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Cintron’s confession, which had been made without adequate Miranda warnings.1 The trial court denied Cintron’s motion as legally insufficient. We remanded for further consideration of this one issue. Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
After remand the trial court again denied the motion, this time attaching what appeared to be a rights waiver form. Because the material relied upon was dehors the official record we reversed a second time. Cintron v. State, 504 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Now the trial court has furnished us with the affidavit of one George L. Montesino, a Lee County deputy sheriff. In his affidavit, which was executed April 7, 1987, Montesino declared that he had been involved in the criminal investigation underlying these proceedings and that he had personally read to Cintron a “standard” series of Miranda warnings in Spanish; Cintron advised Montesino that he understood the warnings and executed the written waiver form that was attached to the previous order. The trial court’s purpose in conducting the proceedings in this manner is obvious. If, as Deputy Montesino has stated, Cin-tron was satisfactorily apprised of his rights, counsel would have had no grounds to move to suppress Cintron’s confession. Unfortunately, we must conclude that the trial court’s method of establishing this point is inadequate. The affidavit serves as the functional equivalent of testimony which is contradictory to the allegations sworn as true by Cintron’s motion. As such, it ought to have been subject to confrontation by Cintron at an evidentiary hearing. Harrell v. State, 458 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Alfonso v. State, 319 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
We stress that by no means are we impugning Montesino’s credibility. It may well be that in this case the result of any evidentiary hearing is a foregone conclusion and the hearing itself a useless act. However, since Cintron has denied that he received any such warning, we are faced with a genuine dispute as to the facts of this case which we are incapable of resolving at this level. If, as the state suggested in its response to Cintron’s motion, the allegations therein are “perjurious,” there are methods of dealing with such an abuse of process and our opinion should not be construed as condoning false statements by movants nor as discouraging disciplinary measures when such statements are made.
For the foregoing reasons we remand this case to the circuit court with directions either to grant Cintron a hearing on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel or to support denial of the motion with exhibits from the official record or other sufficient legal basis.2 Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a notice of appeal within thirty days to obtain further appellate review.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
. We note that Cintron’s conviction took place in 1978. If he has filed previous motions under rule 3.850 the present motion can be denied as repetitive. Witt v. State, 465 So. 2d 510 (Fla.1985); Tanner v. State, 502 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial court could also find that the motion should be barred by laches, although we caution that the passage of time alone is not sufficient evidence of prejudice to the state to support denial on this ground. Simmons v. State, 485 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Borland v. State, 848 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…avit serves as the functional equivalent of testimony which is contradictory to the allegations sworn as true by the movant. As such, it would be subject to confrontation at an evidentiary hearing.” Clark, 662 So. 2d at 730; accord Cintron v. State, 508 So. 2d 1315, 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); see also Youngblood v. State, 261 So. 2d 867, 867-68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (holding that the trial court could not deny an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the strength of a counterv…
-
Savage v. State, 832 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…its basis for concluding that a motion to suppress would have been fruitless. We reverse because this factual dispute, based on the limited record before this court, appears to require resolution through an evidentiary hearing. See Cintron v. State, 508 So. 2d 1315, 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Again, on remand the trial court must determine whether additional documents in the record obviate the need for an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. CASANUEVA, STRINGER, and SILBERMAN,…
-
Morris v. State, 624 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…all the expert’s name or produce any written findings from the expert. However, affidavits generally cannot substitute for live testimony, subject to cross-examination, in proceedings under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Cintron v. State, 508 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 2d DCA1987). A similar claim alleges that counsel had available, but failed to use, an autopsy report which would have shown the child’s death was due to negligent medical treatment. The exhibits attached to the circuit court’s order, althoug…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Witt v. State, 465 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1985)
- Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Simmons v. State, 485 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Harrell v. State, 458 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Tanner v. State, 502 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Cintron v. State, 504 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Alfonso v. State, 319 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)