SHAWN SAMPSON, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of one post-conviction relief claim regarding the right to self-representation but reversed and remanded another claim concerning ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present an intoxication defense. The court found that the trial court's conclusion that not presenting the intoxication defense was a strategic decision required further review.
The court held that the claim regarding the right to self-representation was without merit and affirmed its denial. However, the court held that the claim regarding the intoxication defense was not conclusively refuted by the attachments and required remand for an evidentiary hearing or further findings.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to inform a defendant of their right to self-representation is without merit.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present an intoxication defense requires remand for attachments conclusively refuting the claim or an evidenti…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Sampson’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to inform Sampson of his right to self-representation is without merit and thus affirmed.”
Establishes the court's decision on the first claim of 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 intelligenceShawn Sampson sought post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. His claims included counsel's failure to inform him of …
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 Strategic Decisions Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Shawn Sampson appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief. Sampson’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to inform Sampson of his right to self-representation is without merit and thus affirmed. However, the claim that failure to present an intoxication defense constituted ineffective assistance of trial counsel requires remand for attachments conclusively refuting the claim or an evidentiary hearing.
The order denying the rule 3.850 motion and its attachments do not demonstrate conclusively that Sampson is not entitled to relief. The trial court determined that trial counsel’s failure to raise a voluntary intoxication defense was a strategic decision based on the incompatibility of the intoxication defense with the defense actually used, that the shooting underlying the murder conviction was accidental. To conclude that an action or inaction taken by a trial attorney was a strategic decision generally requires an evidentiary hearing. See Flores v. State, 662 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In his motion, Sampson asserts the appropriate prerequisites for a valid ineffective assistance claim based on a failure to raise the intoxication defense, i.e., he was intoxicated when the crimes occurred, he told his attorney of his intoxication, and he gave his attorney a list of witnesses who could corroborate his intoxication. See Kelly v. State, 712 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (identifying factual allegations that support requiring an evidentiary hearing on voluntary intoxication claims); see also Wright v. State, 675 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Sampson’s crimes also satisfy the criterion that they be specific intent crimes in order for the defense to be available.
Accordingly, this case is remanded for the trial to court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing, or to deny the claim without a hearing if record attachments conclusively refute Sampson’s allegations.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and SALCINES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Pineda v. State, 805 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…llant’s counsel without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. Generally, an evidentiary hearing is required to conclude that action or inaction was a strategic decision. Walker v. State, 792 So. 2d 604, 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Sampson v. State, 751 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). See also Guisasola v. State, 667 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Collins v. State, 671 So. 2d 827, 828 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(“Matters of trial strategy should not be determined without an evi-dentiary hearing.”). Moreover, a c…
-
Green v. State, 827 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…ough portions of the record were attached, those portions do not refute this claim. A trial court’s finding that some action or inaction by defense counsel was tactical is generally inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing. See Sampson v. State, 751 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Comfort v. State, 597 So. 2d 944, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Therefore, on this claim we reverse. On remand, if the trial court determines that the claim should be summarily denied, it should attach the additional portions of the r…
-
Hamilton v. State, 915 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). However, “[to] conclude that an action or inaction taken by a trial attorney was a strategic decision generally requires an evidentiary hearing.” Sampson v. State, 751 So. 2d 602, 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also Guisasola v. State, 667 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Here, there is little to suggest that defense counsel elected not to file a motion to suppress for any strategic purpose. Had counsel employed such a str…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Flores v. State, 662 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Hill v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 712 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Wright v. State, 675 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)