LARRY EDWIN FORDHAM, 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.
Court reversed denial of postconviction relief on ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding failure to suppress allegedly coerced confession, finding factual allegations sufficient to require evidentiary hearing under Strickland.
Trial counsel's failure to move to suppress a confession alleged to be coerced and involuntary constitutes ineffective assistance requiring an evidentiary hearing when the defendant alleges sufficient facts of coercion.
[1] Under Strickland v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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 self-serving testimony of the police officers upon which the court relied, however, along with the signed waiver of rights form, do not conclusively refute Fordham's allegations.”
Court explaining why trial court erred in finding suppression motion would have been futile
Fordham appealed a trial court's denial of postconviction relief, alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress his confe…
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 Futility Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Larry Fordham, appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for posteonviction relief as it pertains to grounds one, four, five, eight, and nine of the motion. We affirm the order to the extent that it denies relief on grounds four, five, eight, and nine but find it necessary to reverse the order as to ground one, and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
In ground one of his motion, Fordham alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress Fordham’s confession on the basis that it was coerced and involuntary. The trial court denied relief, ruling that any effort on trial counsel’s part to suppress the confession would have been futile. The self-serving testimony of the police officers upon which the court relied, however, along with the signed waiver of rights form, do not conclusively refute Ford-ham’s allegations. The sworn motion sets forth sufficient facts of coercion to satisfy the dictates of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and to require an evidentiary hearing. Consequently, we reverse on this point and remand the case for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on ground one.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bolin v. State, 736 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 1999)…dmission because no actual records were offered or admitted. Oral testimony concerning business records is not admissible under this exception. § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (1985); Thompson v. State, 705 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Johnson v. State, 691 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Aside from being hearsay, this testimony by Kling was inadmissible because it was not relevant to a material fact in issue. § 90.401, Fla. Stat. (1985). Had defense counsel discussed media coverage of police reports, this ev…
-
Yost v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Hope of Lee Cnty., Inc., 848 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…2001), they were not presented at the hearing. That being the case, the testimony describing the report’s content was double hearsay that was not admissible under the exception. See Bolin v. State, 736 So. 2d 1160, 1167 (Fla.1999); Johnson v. State, 691 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Yost’s failure to object to the admissibility of this hearsay testimony does not preclude us from considering the [*1238] sufficiency of the evidence to support the referee’s order. Brown, 710 So. 2d at 668; Doyle, 685 So. 2…
-
Major Barnes v. State, 739 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…rd. See Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Instead, the state offered only the probation officer’s testimony regarding the contents of the file. Consequently, the business records exception does not apply. See Johnson v. State, 691 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Hudson v. State, 489 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Moreover, the probation officer had no personal knowledge whether Mr. Barnes was ever informed of the scheduled alcohol abuse screenings. Without some competent eviden…
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
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)