MICHAEL WILSON, 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.
Michael Wilson appealed the denial of his postconviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The appellate court affirmed the denial of his severance claim but reversed the rejection of his ineffective assistance claim regarding counsel's failure to investigate and employ a voluntary intoxication defense.
The appellate court held that Wilson stated a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the voluntary intoxication defense that required either an evidentiary hearing or attachment of record portions conclusively establishing he was not entitled to relief. The court affirmed without discussion the rejection of the severance claim.
[1] A pretrial motion for severance is affirmed without discussion when the appellate court finds no error.
[2] A facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to investigate and employ a voluntary intoxication defense to specific intent crimes…
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“Appellant's motion presented a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on failure to investigate, and to employ at trial, a voluntary intoxication defense to the specific intent crimes with which he was charged.”
Establishes that the court found Wilson's postconviction allegations sufficient to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson was charged with crimes requiring specific intent. He filed a postconviction motion alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to i…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the denial of his motion seeking posteonviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He complains about the rejection of his claims that trial counsel had been ineffective because he failed to investigate, and to employ at trial, a voluntary intoxication defense; and that the trial court should have granted his pretrial motion for severance. We affirm the rejection of the latter claim without discussion. However, we reverse the rejection of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Appellant’s motion presented a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on failure to investigate, and to employ at trial, a voluntary intoxication defense to the specific intent crimes with which he was charged. See Bartley v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (allegation that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate voluntary intoxication defense to charge involving specific intent crime, despite being told that defendant was high on cocaine and alcohol at time of offense, legally sufficient to state claim for postconvietion relief); Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (allegation that counsel was ineffective because he failed to consider voluntary intoxication defense despite knowledge that defendant had history of alcohol and cocaine addiction, and evidence that defendant was under influence of both drugs at time of offense, sufficient to require evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of record refuting allegations when offense was one requiring specific intent).
In denying this claim, the trial court referred to portions of the record, which it said conclusively established that appellant was not entitled to relief.
However, the portions of the record referred to in the order are not attached to it.
Accordingly, we must reverse as to this claim only. On remand, the trial court is directed either to hold an evidentiary hearing or to attach to its order again denying relief those portions of the record which conclusively establish that appellant is not entitled to relief.
AFFIRMED IN PART; RE-VERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ervin Alphonso Bartley v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- In the Interest of J.H. v. State, 625 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)