ANTONIO GOREE, 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 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a bailiff's remark to the jury was facially sufficient and required an evidentiary hearing.
Antonio Goree alleged his attorney was ineffective for failing to address a bailiff's remark to the jury about Goree being the "guilty man" during an …
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Antonio Goree challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of relief on all claims except one aspect of ineffective assistance of counsel; on this one issue we reverse.
Goree alleges he was transported in the same elevator with his jury, and during the ride the bailiff remarked, “[Hjere’s the guilty man.” Allegedly, a juror responded, “[Y]eh that’s him.” Goree claims his attorney was ineffective for failing to bring this incident to the trial court’s attention. He further alleges he was prejudiced by the bailiff’s remark and the response of the juror. Goree’s claim of error is facially sufficient and is not refuted by portions of the record attached by the trial court.
We, therefore, reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Either party may seek review of any subsequent order by the trial court within thirty days of rendition.
SCHOONOVER, AC.J., and QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
I.B. v. State, 806 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…991). Further, the record clearly reflects that the court stated the amount and basis for the statutorily authorized public defender fees and costs imposed. Although we recognize that this point is a minor one, we note conflict with R.T.D. v. State, 679 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2d [*612] DCA 1996), and Sutton v. State, 635 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), for the reasons stated in the concurring opinion. STONE and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. GROSS, J., concurs specially with opinion.…1 / 2
-
King v. State, 48 Fla. L. Weekly D662 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…(emphasis added).1 1 We find Reyes both flawed and difficult to decipher. Despite its strict-sounding pronouncement, Reyes affirmed a cost lacking a Then, the following year, this more technical language gained some traction in R.T.D. v. State, 679 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), when the court struck costs “because the trial court did not cite any statutory authority for these costs in its order.” Id. at 1264 (emphasis added). Since then, the second district has regularly employed similar language when…
-
Brien Austin Kim v. State (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence