J.C. JOYNER, A/K/A TONY JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 defendant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a voluntary intoxication defense were sufficient to preclude summary denial of postconviction relief.
The defendant pleaded guilty to charges and later sought postconviction relief, alleging his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of a vo…
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.
Defendant-appellant J.C. Joyner appeals an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.
Defendant entered negotiated pleas in two circuit court cases and was sentenced accordingly. By sworn motion for postconviction relief he alleges that he told his defense counsel and defense counsel’s investigator that he has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse, and was drunk and high during the commission of the charged offenses, which were specific intent crimes. He states that trial counsel was ineffective in advising him that he had no defense to the charged crimes, when voluntary intoxication would have formed a defense to the specific intent crimes charged.
Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(i), “[u]nless the record shows conclusively that the appellant is entitled to no relief, the order shall be reversed and the cause remanded for an evidentiary hearing.” Allegations similar to those made by the defendant in this case have been held sufficient to preclude a summary denial of post-conviction relief. See Hester v. State, 23 Fla.
L. Weekly D1567, - So. 2d - (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bartley v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Flores v. State, 662 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Durden v. State, 657 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We therefore reverse the order under review and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the defendant’s allegations, or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d at 885.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State, 766 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the record does not conclusively show that defendant is not entitled to relief on the voluntary intoxication ground, see Soloman v. State, 741 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Joyner v. State, 728 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), we reverse the order and remand the cause for an eviden-tiary hearing on that ground. We affirm the order as to the remaining grounds. Contrary to the dissent’s position, the evidence that it refers to in support of the asserti…
Authorities Cited
- Flores v. State, 662 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Young v. State, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Swain v. Bernie Howell, 661 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Ervin Alphonso Bartley v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Paleno Estrada v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d 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)
- Durden v. State, 657 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)