JUAN JIMENEZ, 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 an evidentiary hearing is required on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call a witness, as the record does not conclusively refute the claim.
The defendant appealed the denial of postconviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for not calling a co-defendant who provided an a…
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 Impeachment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Juan Jimenez appeals an order summarily denying his motion for postcoviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Defendant-appellant Jimenez contends that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call as a witness at trial code-fendant Antonio Ulloa, who gave an affidavit saying that defendant Jimenez had no involvement in the drug transaction for which he was tried. The State argues that defense counsel simply made a tactical decision not to call Ulloa, because there is a tape recording which would impeach Ulloa. Defendant counters that the English-language paraphrase of the tape, which is contained in a police report, is not an accurate summary of the Spanish-language conversation, and that there is no inconsistency between the Ulloa exculpatory affidavit and the Spanish-language tape recording. There is no English-language transcription of the tape in the record now before us. Under our standard of review, “Unless 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.” Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(i). As we are unable to say that the record conclusively refutes the defendant’s claim, we reverse the order now before us and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
Defendant concedes that the trial court was correct in rejecting his argument that counsel should have filed a motion to suppress certain evidence. We therefore affirm the trial court ruling on that issue.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jimenez v. State, 789 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…PER CURIAM. Juan A. Jimenez appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. On remand from Jimenez v. State, 754 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding the claim by defendant-appellant Jimenez that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call codefendant Antonio Ulloa to testify on defendant’s behalf at trial.1…
-
Jarvis Harvard v. State, 46 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…to call the co-defendants as trial witnesses to support his claim that he did not know of their plan to commit the grand theft for which he was tried as a principal. See generally Brown v. State, 892 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Jimenez v. State, 754 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). As alleged, the claim is sufficiently plead and not refuted by the record furnished. See, e.g., Banks v. State, 825 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We affirm the denial of the remaining claims without discussion. POLEN, TAYLOR…