GEORGE E. WRIGHT, 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.
George Wright appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion, challenging the effectiveness of his guilty-plea counsel. The appellate court reversed one of his eight claims regarding counsel's failure to investigate a voluntary intoxication defense, finding it facially sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.
The court held that Wright's allegation that counsel failed to investigate a claimed defense, coupled with his representation that he would not have entered a plea had proper investigation occurred, constitutes a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel warranting an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is facially sufficient when it alleges that counsel failed to investigate claimed defenses and that the movant would not have…
[2] Summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief is improper when the motion alleges facts that, if true, would entitle the movant to relief, and the record does not…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“an allegation that counsel did not investigate claimed defenses, coupled with the representation that the movant would not have entered a plea had the investigation been properly undertaken, as Wright has alleged, constitutes a facially sufficient claim of ineffectiveness of counsel”
Establishes the legal standard for sufficiency of ineffective assistance claims based on failure to investigate defenses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright pleaded guilty to multiple felonies including sexual batteries, kidnapping, and attempted first-degree murder. He claimed he had ingested large…
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 Specific Intent Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1010] PER CURIAM.
George Wright challenges the order of the trial court summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Of the eight claims he advances only one merits attention, upon which we reverse for an evidentiary hearing or record attachments which refute his claim.
Wright pleaded guilty to a number of felonies associated with two sexual batteries. He had been charged with the sexual batteries, crimes which require no specific intent, Johnson v. State, 565 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), as well as kidnapping and attempted first degree murder, which are specific intent crimes. Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285 (Fla.1993); Chestnut v. State, 538 So. 2d 820 (Fla.1989). In his motion he assails counsel for not pursuing a defense of voluntary intoxication after he had advised counsel that before and during the commission of the offenses he had ingested large quantities of crack cocaine and cognac. In addition he alleges that the circumstances surrounding his arrest, which apparently interrupted the activity of which he stands convicted, would have provided police corroboration of his intoxicated state.
These facts are strikingly similar to those in Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), which also involved the entry of a plea and a claim that counsel had failed to pursue a defense of voluntary intoxication. The court reversed for an evidentiary hearing, finding that the attachments failed to demonstrate that the movant was entitled to no relief. See also Brunson v. State, 605 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
This court has recently reiterated that an allegation that counsel did not investigate claimed defenses, coupled with the representation that the movant would not have entered a plea had the investigation been properly undertaken, as Wright has alleged, constitutes a facially sufficient claim of ineffectiveness of counsel. Shaw v. State, 650 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
We reverse the trial court insofar as it summarily denied this claim to conduct an evidentiary hearing, or to deny the claim without a hearing if record attachments conclusively refute Wright’s assertions. Should the trial court again deny the motion appellate review must be sought within thirty days of the rendering of the order. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sampson v. State, 751 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…st of witnesses who could corroborate his intoxication. See Kelly v. State, 712 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (identifying factual allegations that support requiring an evidentiary hearing on voluntary intoxication claims); see also Wright v. State, 675 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Sampson’s crimes also satisfy the criterion that they be specific intent crimes in order for the defense to be available. Accordingly, this case is remanded for the trial to court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing, or to…
-
Smith v. State, 719 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…st degree murder, kidnapping, and burglary of a conveyance with an assault or battery. Each of these offenses is a specific intent crime. See Hylleberg v. State, 700 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)• (first degree murder; kidnapping); Wright v. State, 675 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (kidnapping); Urquhart v. State, SI6 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (burglary).…
-
Straitwell v. State, 834 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…v. State, 415 So. 2d 135, 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). However, it is not a defense to general intent crimes such as sexual battery or lewd or lascivious assault upon a child. Killian v. State, 730 So. 2d 360, 362-63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Wright v. State, 675 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In order to successfully assert the voluntary intoxication defense, “the defendant must come forward with evidence of intoxication at the time of the offense sufficient to establish that he was unable to form the intent ne…
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
- Sochor v. State, 619 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 1993)
- Chestnut v. State, 538 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1989)
- Thornton Brunson v. State, 605 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Swain v. Bernie Howell, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Ulysses Johnson v. State, 565 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Shaw v. State, 650 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)