WALLACE STEWART, 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.
Wallace Stewart appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reversed in part, holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involving the failure to file suppression motions for seized evidence and statements must proceed to an evidentiary hearing rather than being summarily denied.
The court held that Stewart's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which strikes at the heart of the seizure of contraband and admission of his statement, is not legally insufficient and must proceed to an evidentiary hearing. The trial court erred in denying the motion without a hearing.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a defendant to show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defen…
[2] Counsel's errors are considered deficient performance if they are so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
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“the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
States the two-part Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWallace Stewart was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to sell, possession of cocaine with intent to sell, and possession of marijuana. …
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 V. Washington Two-Part Test (Deficient Performance And Prejudice) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*268] PARKER, Judge.
Wallace Stewart has appealed the trial court’s denial of Stewart’s motion for post-conviction relief. Of the four grounds raised by Stewart, only one has merit. Stewart was convicted of possession of marijuana with the intent to sell, possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, and possession of marijuana. Stewart alleged ineffective assistance of counsel based upon his attorney’s failure to file motions to suppress evidence seized from an automobile and motel room and to suppress statements taken from Stewart while Stewart was in custody and had not been given his Miranda warnings. We reverse.
The trial court denied Stewart’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that Stewart must defer to his attorney’s decisions on trial tactics and strategy. Further, the trial court held that claims previously raised on direct appeal will not be heard on a motion for postconviction relief argued under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The United States Supreme Court has established the following two-part test for determining whether trial counsel’s assistance was so defective as to mandate reversal of a conviction:
First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984). Because Stewart’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel strikes at the heart of the seizure of the contraband admitted against him at trial and the admission of his statement at trial, we hold that the trial court erred in concluding that the motion was legally insufficient. We, therefore, reverse the denial of the motion for postconviction relief as it relates to the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and remand to the trial court to examine the files and records in this case in an effort to determine whether anything therein conclusively refutes Stewart’s claim. If so, the court again may deny the motion, attaching to its order those portions of the record reflecting Stewart’s claim. Otherwise the trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent actions of the trial court must file a timely notice to obtain further appellate review. The trial court’s order is affirmed in all other respects.
Reversed in part; affirmed in part; remanded.
FRANK, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…refutation or an evidentiary hearing to resolve it); see also Devega v. State, 706 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (echoing the holding of Simmons while silent on whether the conviction under attack resulted from a trial or a plea); Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that trial counsel’s failure to move to suppress evidence in the context of a trial may serve as grounds to vacate a conviction). A trial attorney’s failure to investigate a factual defense or a defense relying on the s…
-
Haynes v. State, 729 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…raised on direct appeal. The abbreviated record in this case does not indicate that a motion to suppress statements was filed and denied. Therefore, the issue could be raised only as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Stewart v. State, 629 So. 2d 267, 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Since there is nothing in the record to suggest that appellant waived the Miranda warnings, or that he made essentially the same statements after being given proper warnings, we reverse the denial of relief as to ground two,…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)