JAMES HARRISON, 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.
James Harrison appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on alleged failures to suppress his confession and properly advise him about his plea bargain. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court record did not contain sufficient information to rebut Harrison's allegations regarding his drug intoxication during the confession and plea, and the missing plea colloquy prevented determination of whether he was adequately advised of minimum mandatory sentences.
The court held that Harrison's claims could not be summarily denied because the trial court record lacked evidence to rebut his allegations regarding intoxication at confession and plea, the plea colloquy was missing from the record, and there was no evidence demonstrating that the trial court properly advised him of minimum penalties or honored the specific sentence arrangement he claimed to have negotiated.
[1] A confession may be rendered involuntary and inadmissible if the defendant's intoxication is so severe as to prevent them from understanding the rights they are waiving.
[2] Failure of counsel to seek suppression of a confession, when a valid basis for suppression exists, may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
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“However, in some circumstances their influence may be so severe as to render the confession involuntary.”
Establishes that while drugs ordinarily affect credibility of confessions, extreme intoxication can render a confession involuntary and subject to suppression.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarrison confessed to numerous armed robberies while allegedly under the influence of crack cocaine and claimed he was unable to understand his consti…
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 For Ineffective Assistance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Harrison appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse.
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based upon an alleged failure to seek suppression of Harrison’s confession to numerous armed robberies. Harrison claims he confessed while so thoroughly under the influence of crack cocaine that he was unable to understand the constitutional rights he was waiving. As a general rule, intoxicants or narcotic drugs affect the credibility rather than the admissibility of a confession. However, in some circumstances their influence may be so severe as to render the confession involuntary. Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla.1964). If counsel knew a valid basis existed to suppress a confession, and failed to act accordingly, this could constitute ineffective assistance. See, e.g., Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The standard established by Reddish, when conjoined with the Strickland test for effectiveness of trial counsel,1 imposes a rather heavy burden upon Harrison, but there is nothing in the record presently before us to rebut his allegations.
Harrison, who ended up accepting a plea bargain, also claims that he was under the influence of psychoactive medication at the time the plea was entered and so was unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions. If true this might permit him to withdraw the plea if he so desired. Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The record does not contain the plea colloquy, nor does it otherwise rebut this claim.
Finally, Harrison claims that he was unaware that his plea for concurrent sentences would permit the “stacking” of minimum mandatory terms for use of a firearm.2 Although he describes the sentence as “illegal,” he does not provide a factual basis demonstrating a violation of Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983). However, a court is required to advise a defendant of any minimum penalties involved in the offense(s) to which he is pleading, and a failure to do so may render the plea involuntary. Perez v. State, 449 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The court is also obliged to honor plea bargains calling for a specific sentence arrangement, or, if it cannot, to afford the accused the chance to withdraw his plea. Devard v. State, 504 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Without the plea colloquy or other evidence demonstrating the nature of Harrison’s plea agreement, we cannot say that this particular claim has been conclusively refuted.3
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur. . Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
. § 775.087(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989).
. It could be argued that this claim is somewhat inconsistent with the one that precedes it, wherein Harrison maintains he was too drugged to appreciate any aspect of the plea whatsoever and did not even realize he had received a prison sentence until the drug had worn off.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COX v. State, 711 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…have been suppressed because he was under the influence of alcohol and narcotics at the time, which rendered the confession involuntary. Generally, such intoxicants affect the credibility of the confession, not its voluntariness. Harrison v. State, 562 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). When voluntariness is in question, the inquiry is “whether the defendant is aware and able to comprehend in a general way what he is doing and to communicate with coherence and rationality.” Burns v. State, 584 So. 2d 1073, 1075…
-
Rappaport v. State, 24 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…A 1999) (evidentiary hearing required for motion to withdraw plea where defendant entered plea while he claims he was suffering from a mental illness and was incapable of advising the court of this condition at the plea colloquy); Harrison v. State, 562 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (without a plea colloquy or other evidence, defendant’s claim that he was under psychoactive medication at the time he entered his plea requires an evidentiary hearing). While questions asked and answered at a recorded meeting co…
-
Jefferson v. State, 351 So. 3d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…ffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to file a motion to suppress, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel knew a valid basis existed to suppress the relevant evidence, yet counsel failed to file the motion. See Harrison v. State, 562 So. 2d 827, 827–28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). A motion to suppress statements is appropriate if law enforcement illegally obtained a confession or admission from the defendant. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(h). In order to establish prejudice, a defendant "must demons…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- Reddish v. State, 167 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1964)
- Campbell v. State, 488 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Perez v. State, 449 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Devard v. State, 504 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)