TIMOTHY L. UPSHAW, 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.
The court held that one claim in the motion for postconviction relief presented a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, requiring further proceedings.
Upshaw, who pled guilty to murder, claims his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to suppress a coerced confession. The confessi…
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 Prima Facie Showing cases and more on FLexlaw
[*379] PER CURIAM.
Timothy Upshaw appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We find that one of the several claims raised in the motion presents a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief, and so reverse for further proceedings regarding that one claim.
Upshaw, who pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder in exchange for life sentences, now maintains that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance. Specifically, he alleges that counsel failed to move the suppression of Upshaw’s confession to the two crimes, although counsel knew or should have known that the confession had been coerced. Among other things, Upshaw contends that the confession was the product of a custodial interrogation undertaken without Miranda warnings,* and that the police promised Upshaw would get “help.” If there is any truth to this, it could constitute ineffective assistance. Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The trial court’s order and supporting documentation, while adequately refuting all the other claims made in Upshaw’s motion, do not address this point.
After remand the trial court should reexamine the files and records in this case to determine whether anything therein can demonstrate that Upshaw’s claim is without merit. Failing that, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to resolve this issue. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a timely notice of appeal in order to obtain further review by this court.
REVERSED.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and HALL, JJ., concur. *
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 640 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…fession used against him at trial. Specifically, he alleges that the confession was the product of coercion and that trial counsel either knew or should have known of this fact. If true, this could constitute ineffective assistance. Upshaw v. State, 536 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The trial court, however, did not attach any supporting documentation from the record conclusively refuting this allegation. It only affixed the state’s response that also did not have any attachments from the record disproving t…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)