KENNETH M. FORTNER, 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.
Kenneth Fortner appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion for relief. He claims ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained after he was questioned without honoring his requests for an attorney and medical treatment. The appellate court remands one issue while affirming the dismissal of other claims.
The trial court's order denying postconviction relief is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The ineffective assistance of counsel claim presents a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief and must be remanded for further proceedings, while the trial court's dismissal of other grounds in the motion is affirmed.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel if counsel fails to move for suppression of evidence obtained in violation…
[2] Allegations that a defendant was denied access to an attorney and medical treatment until cooperation with law enforcement, and that counsel failed to seek suppression of…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Fortner, convicted of eight armed robberies and one unarmed robbery, claims to have received ineffective assistance from his trial attorney. Specifically, Fortner alleges that after his arrest he was questioned by deputies in spite of his request to consult an attorney and for medical treatment for drug withdrawal symptoms.”
Establishes the core claim of ineffective assistance based on police conduct during custodial interrogation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFortner was convicted of eight armed robberies and one unarmed robbery. After his arrest, he was questioned by deputies despite requesting to consult …
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 Coerced Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
[*86] PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Fortner appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief.
Of the several grounds set out in the motion, only one presents a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. Fortner, convicted of eight armed robberies and one unarmed robbery, claims to have received ineffective assistance from his trial attorney. Specifically, Fortner alleges that after his arrest he was questioned by deputies in spite of his request to consult an attorney and for medical treatment for drug withdrawal symptoms. Neither demand was honored until he “cooperated,” in this instance by confessing his involvement in the offenses and accompanying the deputies on a tour of all the businesses he had robbed. Finally, Fortner claims that counsel was apprised of these facts but nevertheless failed to move the suppression of the incriminating evidence. If these allegations are true, this could have constituted ineffective assistance. Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
The trial court’s order and accompanying exhibits do not conclusively refute this claim. They demonstrate only that Fort-ner’s cooperation with police was cited by counsel in mitigation, after counsel had negotiated a no contest plea, and do not address what may have prompted that cooperation or whether counsel’s investigation and advice to Fortner were adequate. Accordingly, we must remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The trial court otherwise correctly found that Fortner's motion was without merit and its order is affirmed in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…1998), and Stanley v. State, 703 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that in the context of guilty pleas the appellants stated facially sufficient claims that counsel had overlooked defenses of voluntary intoxication). See also Fortner v. State, 538 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (holding that the allegation in the context of a plea that trial counsel failed to move to suppress an incriminating statement constituted a facially sufficient claim). We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Williams’ oth…
-
Wilson v. State, 871 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…a motion to suppress. Appellant alleges that he would not have entered a plea in the absence of these alleged failures. See Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278, 280 (Fla.1988); Lester v. State, 773 So. 2d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Fortner v. State, 538 So. 2d 85, 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (holding that the allegation in the context of a plea that trial counsel failed to move to suppress an incriminating statement constituted a facially sufficient claim). The record demonstrates that between the time appellant e…
-
Cambrick v. State, 593 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…he would not be prosecuted if he agreed to cooperate. This claim does not appear to have been addressed in the trial court's order. If these facts are true, it is possible that counsel did render ineffective assistance. See, e.g., Fortner v. State, 538 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The second claim is that Cambrick was led to believe he would receive guideline sentences, all running concurrent, if he entered pleas in several pending felony cases. Instead, he was sentenced as a habitual offender in some of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)