NATHAN L. JESSIE, 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.
Nathan Jessie appealed the denial of his post-conviction 3.850 motion challenging convictions for robbery, burglary, kidnapping, and grand theft. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding trial counsel's tactical decisions and the failure to challenge probable cause.
Trial counsel was not ineffective on either ground. The decision not to present the character and expert evidence was a sound tactical choice made after discussion with Jessie about its adverse effects on credibility. The probable cause argument was not a viable basis for post-conviction relief because it could and should have been raised on direct appeal and constitutes an attempt to re-litigate substantive matters.
[1] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on the failure to present evidence that would have adversely affected the defendant's credibility before a jury are general…
[2] Arguments regarding the absence of probable cause for an arrest, if not raised on direct appeal, cannot form the basis for post-conviction relief, even when framed as ine…
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 deciding not to present that evidence, Jessie's trial counsel made an informed "tactical choice" within the standard of competency expected of defense counsel”
Establishes the standard for evaluating trial counsel's decision not to present certain evidence as a tactical choice rather than ineffective assistance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJessie was convicted of robbery, burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery, kidnapping, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. The crimes involved t…
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 Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
Jessie appeals the trial court’s order which summarily denied his post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He seeks to challenge his convictions of robbery, burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery, kidnapping and grand theft of a motor vehicle. We affirm.
Jessie first argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain character and expert witnesses whose testimony would allegedly have led the jury to acquit him. They were witnesses who would have testified Jessie had a drug abuse problem and often earned money as a prostitute in the motel where the crimes took place. However, Jessie admits he discussed with trial counsel how such evidence would adversely affect his credibility before a jury. The trial court concluded that in deciding not to present that evidence, Jessie’s trial counsel made an informed “tactical choice” within the standard of competency expected of defense counsel. See Lightbourne v. State, 471 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1985). We find no error.1
Secondly, Jessie argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue at a suppression hearing and at trial that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. The absence of probable cause for an arrest is an issue that could have and should have been raised on direct appeal, and it is accordingly not a viable basis for post-conviction relief. See Fisher v. State, 239 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). This argument appears to be an attempt to re-litigate substantive matters which should have been presented on direct appeal, under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel.
In any event, the point is conclusively refuted by the record. Attached to the court’s order is Detective Ring’s affidavit which, as explained in the court’s order, sets forth the circumstances which led him to arrest Jessie. The court summarized them as follows:
1) Officer Roger Brennan’s police report described a uniquely tattooed white man and a black man who burglarized, while armed with a gun, Mr. John Moore’s hotel room, tied up Mr. Moore, and robbed him of cash, credit cards, and a new, tan on green Sebring Convertible; 2) a black man and a uniquely tattooed white man were involved in several robberies recently committed in Orange County; 3) a white female named Tobi Wells was believed to be connected to those men; 4) Joshua Bartle, the uniquely tattooed white man, was arrested at Ms. Wells’ apartment; 5) Ms. Wells consented to a search of her apartment; 6) Mr. Moore’s stolen credit cards were found in Ms. Wells’ apartment; 7) Ms. Wells identified Mr. Bartle and Mr. Jessie as the two men who committed the crimes against Mr. Moore; 8) Ms. Wells told Det. Ring that immediately following the crimes, Mr. Bartle and Mr. Jessie drove Mr. Moore’s stolen car to the 7-11 at Colonial and Westmoreland. Det. Ring independently verified Ms. Wells’ statements in two ways. First, he reviewed the 7-11’s surveillance tape and saw the stolen car and a black man believed to be Nathan Jessie. Second, the 7-11 manager remembered seeing the [sic] Mr. Moore’s car in the parking lot.
That information and Detective Ring’s independent verification of Ms. Wells’ statements more than supply probable cause to arrest Jessie.
AFFIRMED.
ANTOON, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.
. See Mazard v. State, 649 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edwards v. Crews, 124 So. 3d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…as completely superseded writ of habeas corpus to collaterally challenge a sentence). Challenges to the original probable cause are properly raised at trial and on direct appeal but are not a viable basis for post-conviction relief, Jessie v. State, 726 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), or a postconviction writ of habeas corpus. Considering Appellant’s claim that he was improperly accepted into custody by the Century Correctional Institution without full compliance with section 944.17(5), Florida Statutes, th…
-
Peeler v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Duval County) (M.D. Fla. 2023)…93 (Fla. 1990). See also Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1067 (Fla. 2000) (Claims that should have or could have been raised on direct appeal cannot be relitigated under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel); Jessie v. State, 726 So. 2d 356, 356-57 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“This argument appears to be an attempt to re-litigate substantive matters which should have been presented on direct appeal, under the guise of ineffective assistance of counsel.”) As such, the Court fi…
-
Brown v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2019)…for Post Conviction Relief/Order (1) Denying In Part And (2) Striking In Part With Leave To Amend Defendant’s Pro Se “Motion For Post-Conviction Relief”, Florida v. Brown, 2013-CF-1784 NC at 4 (12th Fla. Cir. Ct. March 7, 2016); see Jessie v. State, 726 So. 2d 356, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). So, this Ground has been procedurally defaulted. And in terms of prejudice or risk of a fundamental miscarriage of justice, as discussed above, Petitioner was convicted by a jury without any DNA evidence linking Petitione…
Authorities Cited
- Lightbourne v. State, 471 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1985)
- Poole Eng'g Co. OF Fort Walton Beach v. Stewart, 239 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Fisher v. State, 239 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Emmane Mazard v. State, 649 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)