REINALDO RAMOS, 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.
Appellant Reinaldo Ramos challenged the denial of his post-conviction relief motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for his trial attorney's failure to file a suppression motion regarding a bus search, failure to call a bus driver witness, and failure to file a statement of judicial acts. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding no ineffective assistance because existing case law at the time permitted the challenged police conduct.
Trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. The failure to file a suppression motion was not ineffective assistance because existing case law at the time permitted the bus search and any suppression motion could not have been properly granted. The failure to call the bus driver caused no prejudice because the driver's testimony could not have altered the controlling case law. The failure to file a statement of judicial acts caused no prejudice because such a statement was not required for privately retained counsel.
[1] Trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence is not ineffective assistance of counsel when existing case law would not have required suppression of the e…
[2] A defendant is not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence if the motion could not have been properly granted under the law at the tim…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Trial counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress the bus search of appellant's luggage was not ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant's case preceded Bostick v. State, 554 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1989). At the time of the crime and the direct appeal, case law permitted police officers to board buses temporarily stopped in stations and to conduct random consent searches of passengers' luggage.”
Establishes the core holding that no ineffective assistance occurred because existing law permitted the search at the time
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was charged in a case involving a bus search of his luggage. Police officers boarded a bus at a station and conducted a consent search of ap…
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 Prejudice (In Ineffective Assistance Claims) cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. We address all of the issues raised in this appeal and affirm.
Trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress the bus search of appellant’s luggage was not ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant’s case preceded Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1989). At the time of the crime and the direct appeal, case law permitted police officers to board buses temporarily stopped in stations and to conduct random consent searches of passengers’ luggage. See State v. Grant, 392 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 610 (Fla.1981). See also Elsleger v. State, 503 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), dismissed, 511 So. 2d 298 (Fla.1987); Rodriguez v. State, 494 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
In Gettel v. State, 449 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 458 So. 2d 272 (Fla.1984), the court held that a trial defense counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress evidence without a warrant was not ineffective assistance of counsel where existing case law did not require suppression of the evidence. The court reasoned that since any motion to suppress could not have been properly granted, there was no prejudice to the defendant when his trial counsel failed to file such a motion.
Trial counsel’s failure to call the bus driver as a defense witness did not prejudice appellant. The driver’s testimony could not alter the then existing case law. See Grant, 392 So. 2d 1362.
Trial counsel’s failure to file a statement of judicial acts to be reviewed resulted in no prejudice to appellant. We note that appellant’s trial counsel was privately retained. A statement of judicial acts to be reviewed is only required “if a transcript will require the expenditure of public funds.” Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b)(3)(A)(ii). We further note that appellant voluntarily dismissed his direct appeal after discussion with his family as to the merits of the appeal.
Any deficiency in the information could have been raised on direct appeal. See McCrae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.1983).
AFFIRMED.
LETTS and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Regueiro v. State, 619 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…guidelines maximum; in contrast, the total sentence (incarceration and probation) may not exceed the statutory maximum. McCray v. State, 599 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Mitchell v. State, 573 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Weidner v. State, 559 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Reid v. State, 565 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Saint v. State, 562 So. 2d 866 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Tyner v. State, 545 So. 2d 961, 963 (Fla.2d DCA 1989); Putt v. State, 527 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In the instant case,…
-
Maynard v. State, 763 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…a defendant’s combined sentence of imprisonment and probation for a singular offense exceeds the maximum sentence authorized by law, the trial court imposed separate sentences. Cf [*482] State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1978); Weidner v. State, 559 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Ortiz v. State, 696 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). The trial court did not impose a probationary split sentence1 for any one offense. Rather, it imposed a sentence for each offense notwithstanding that the offenses are combined…
-
Chambers v. State, 975 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…n below) aggravated battery might have harmed Mr. Chambers’ chances for a lesser sentence, we find no ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel in this regard. See, e.g., Gettel v. State, 449 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Ramos v. State, 559 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel denied. NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. Appendix A EXCERPT OF VERDICT FORM COUNT ONE (Marcia Radway, victim) We the jury, find the defendant, Patrick Cham…
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
- McCRAE v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983)
- Bostick v. State, 554 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 1989)
- State v. Grant, 392 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Elsleger v. State, 503 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Rodriguez v. State, 494 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Gettel v. State, 449 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)