JOSEPH A. WEBSTER, 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.
Joseph Webster appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. His trial lawyer allegedly told him that alcohol consumption alone was sufficient for a manslaughter conviction, which was erroneous legal advice. The court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing on this ineffective assistance claim.
The court held that if counsel indeed informed Webster that consumption of alcohol in and of itself was sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction, such advice was erroneous. The trial court erred in denying the motion on facial insufficiency grounds without holding an evidentiary hearing or providing evidence refuting Webster's specific claim.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to postconviction relief if trial counsel provided erroneous legal advice regarding the elements of the crime charged.
[2] Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general 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“if counsel indeed informed him that consumption of alcohol in and of itself was sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction, such advice was erroneous.”
Establishes that the alleged advice from counsel regarding alcohol and manslaughter was legally incorrect
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWebster was charged with manslaughter. During trial preparation or proceedings, his counsel allegedly advised him that his consumption of alcohol alon…
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 General Intent Crime cases and more on FLexlaw
KAHN, J.
In this appeal, Joseph A. Webster once again asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, because his trial counsel erroneously advised him that his consumption of alcohol alone was sufficient to convict him of manslaughter. As this court indicated when it reversed and remanded the first trial court order denying this claim, “if counsel indeed informed him that consumption of alcohol in and of itself was sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction, such advice was erroneous.” Webster v. State, 744 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see Walsingham v. State, 272 So. 2d 215, 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) (“There was evidence that Walsing-ham had been drinking or was under the influence of alcohol to some degree. Such evidence, while technically admissible, was not conclusive, and could not, in and of itself, make an act wanton and reckless that would not otherwise be so.”).
On remand, however, the trial court again found Webster’s claim facially insufficient.
The trial court did not hold a hearing on the claim and did not attach to its order anything refuting the claim. Instead, the trial court prepared an order concluding that “manslaughter is a general intent crime, as to which voluntary intoxication does not provide a defense.” This conclusion, although correct, does not really address Webster’s specific claim of ineffective assistance.
Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND with directions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing on Webster’s claim that he received erroneous legal advice concerning whether his consumption of alcohol alone was sufficient to convict him of manslaughter. WEBSTER, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ„ CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 871 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…degree murder charge against appellant. See Jackson v. State, 699 So. 2d 306, 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Voluntary intoxication is also not a defense to the general intent crime of manslaughter, the crime to which appellant pled. See Webster v. State, 744 So. 2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Appellant’s counsel could not be ineffective for failing to pursue this non-viable defense. We affirm the trial court’s denial of relief on the remaining claims without discussion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and R…
Authorities Cited
- Walsingham v. State, 272 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Webster v. State, 744 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)