JORGE GUADALUPE MANCERA, 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 the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion regarding the alleged failure to suppress a coerced confession and the failure to investigate exculpatory witnesses.
Jorge Guadalupe Mancera appealed the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.…
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
PER CURIAM.
Jorge Guadalupe Mancera appeals the summary denial of his motion for postcon-viction relief. He claims to have received ineffective assistance from the attorney who represented him on charges of sexual battery. The motion cites numerous acts and omissions, only two of which merit further attention.
First, Mancera asserts that counsel failed to move for the suppression of his confession, even though he was aware the confession had been coerced by police. If these allegations are true, it is possible that counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Fortner v. State, 538 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Second, Mancera states that counsel was given the name of witnesses who could testify that the alleged victim actually fabricated the charges. If exculpatory witnesses existed, and counsel had no valid reason for failing to question or produce them, Mancera might be entitled to relief on this basis also. Prieto v. State, 573 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).1
The trial court denied Mancera’s motion as facially insufficient. Except for the two claims discussed herein, we agree with that conclusion and affirm the order of the trial court. With regard to the alleged failures to seek suppression of the confession and to investigate the possible existence of exculpatory witnesses, we reverse for further proceedings. After remand the trial court may again deny the motion, attaching to its order any exhibits from the record which refute these two claims. If no such exhibits can be located, an evidentiary hearing will be necessary.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur. . While at first blush this allegation may seem inconsistent with the previous claim, Mancera does contend that the statement he gave police was untrue as well as involuntary.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 627 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…failed to do so. The record before us does not refute this claim, which, if true, could constitute ineffective assistance. Cf. Yoris v. State, 609 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (failure to use witness affidavit recanting testimony); Mancera v. State, 600 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (failure to explore possibility charges were falsified); Young v. State, 511 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (failure to investigate possible alibi witnesses). After remand the circuit court should reexamine the files and records i…
-
Yoris v. State, 609 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…ury. Nevertheless, we do not believe Mat-era controls the outcome of this case. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may arise where counsel has unjustifiably overlooked or ignored material, exculpatory evidence. See, e.g., Mancera v. State, 600 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Prieto v. State, 573 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The test of credibility we spoke of in Lin-kous presumes that counsel is adequately prepared to impeach or rebut the testimony of suspect witnesses. In the present case Yoris ha…
-
Jackson v. State, 640 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ng to show that this claim is without merit. If it again summarily denies the motion, it must attach to its order those parts of the record that refute the claim. If no such exhibits exist, an evidentiary hearing will be necessary. Mancera v. State, 600 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). 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. DANAHY, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Prieto v. State, 573 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Fortner v. State, 538 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)