RUFUS HATTEN, 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.
Rufus Hatten appeals the denial of his post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The appellate court affirmed the denial of some grounds but reversed the summary denial of claims regarding failed investigation of exculpatory witnesses, finding these allegations facially sufficient and requiring either refutation or an evidentiary hearing.
The court affirmed summary denial of the lineup identification claim and the sufficiency of the habituality notice claim (procedurally barred), but reversed summary denial of the ineffective assistance claims regarding failure to investigate and call witnesses. The trial court must either attach record portions that conclusively refute these claims or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] Issues previously raised and rejected on direct appeal are procedurally barred from reconsideration in a post-conviction motion.
[2] To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must demonstrate both deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
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“In order to prevail, he must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different absent the deficient performance.”
States the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims that Hatten must satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHatten was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to life with a 15-year minimum mandatory term plus a concurr…
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 Alibi Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Rufus Hatten appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Hatten was tried and convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced as a habitual violent felony offender to life with a 15 year minimum mandatory term and a concurrent 3 year term for use of a firearm. He appealed and his conviction and sentence were affirmed. See Hatten v. State, 654 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Hatten now claims that his trial counsel was ineffective. In order to prevail, he must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different absent the deficient performance. See Haliburton v. Singletary, 691 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1997). As to Hatten’s claim that counsel was ineffective regarding the line-up, we agree with the trial court that prejudice has not been shown. The sufficiency of the state’s notice of intent to habitualize was raised and rejected in the direct appeal and therefore is procedurally barred from reconsideration on a post-eonviction motion. See Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726, 728 (Fla.1996) (issues raised on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a post-eonviction proceeding). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s denial of these two grounds for relief.
However, we find that the trial court erred in summarily denying the remaining ineffective assistance claims. In Edwards v. State, 652 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), we held that a claim that trial counsel failed to investigate or call exculpatory witnesses was facially sufficient and must either be refuted by attachments or an evidentiary hearing held. Hatten claims that he gave his counsel’s investigator the names of three witnesses who could impeach the identification testimony and one witness who would testify that Hatten had an alibi. In reviewing a summary denial, we must accept these allegations as true. Edwards, 652 So. 2d at 1277. Since the only evidence connecting Hatten to the robbery was the victim’s identification, this testimony could have affected the outcome of the trial, and therefore summary denial was error. On remand, the trial court must either attach specific portions of the record which conclusively refute the ineffective assistance claims or hold an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford v. State, 825 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2002)…an allegation raised question of fact). In this regard we agree with the Fourth District’s decision in Jackson. 711 So. 2d at 1372; see also Williams, 601 So. 2d at 598-99. Indeed, the Fifth District itself has previously stated in Hatten v. State, 698 So. 2d 899, 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), that “a claim that trial counsel failed to investigate or call exculpatory witnesses [when] facially sufficient ... must either be refuted by attachments or an evidentia-ry hearing held.” See also Schopper v. State, 790 So.…
-
Darrel Schopper v. State, 790 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…subpoenaed. Schopper was represented by counsel, whom he had the right to expect would interview and subpoena needed witnesses. Schopper was not obliged to subpoena, prepare and examine the witnesses himself. As this court said in Hatten v. State, 698 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), a claim that counsel failed to investigate or call exculpatory witnesses must be refuted by the record or an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine the facts. Here, Schopper alleges the identity of the prospective witness…
-
Lopez v. State, 773 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…identification of the defendant. If Lopez had a discernable limp, that fact should have strengthened the attempt to impeach one of the witnesses who testified that he saw Lopez run away from the scene after shooting the victim. In Hatten v. State, 698 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), this court reversed the summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion which alleged that the defendant had supplied the names of witnesses who would impeach the victim’s identification testimony, as well as the name of an alibi witness.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Krishna Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996)
- Haliburton v. Singletary, 691 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1997)
- Edwards v. State, 652 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)