RODERICK STOKES, 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.
Roderick Stokes appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 ineffective assistance of counsel motion. The appellate court reverses in part, finding that Stokes raised a genuine issue regarding his counsel's failure to interview and call a hospital interpreter who heard the victim identify the perpetrator, requiring reconsideration by the trial court.
The trial court's summary denial of Stokes's ineffective assistance claim regarding the interpreter was reversed. The appellate court found the claim was not conclusively refuted by the record and that the interpreter could have testified with greater credibility than the impeached police officer, making the omission potentially prejudicial.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to interview and call an interpreter as a witness is not conclusively refuted by the record when the rec…
[2] When the record does not conclusively establish whether a defense counsel's omission was a strategic decision, an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the issue of…
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“Stokes's claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call an interpreter as a witness is not conclusively refuted by the record before the court.”
Establishes that the appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary denial of the ineffective assistance claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStokes was 16 years old when he committed armed robbery and was tried and convicted as an adult, receiving a 27-year prison sentence plus 10 years pro…
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 Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
Roderick Stokes appeals the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Stokes’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and call an interpreter as a witness is not conclusively refuted by the record before the court. Accordingly, the order denying relief is reversed as to this issue and affirmed as to the remaining issues raised by Stokes.
Stokes was sixteen years old when his offense was committed. He was tried and sentenced as an adult. He was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to twenty-seven years in prison to be followed by ten years of probation. In his motion, he claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. One of his claims has merit and must be reconsidered by the trial court.
Stokes asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and subpoena for trial a potential witness, the hospital interpreter who heard the victim identify the perpetrator as someone other than Stokes.
The trial court denied this claim based on the fact that the police officer who heard the victim name “Ernest” as the perpetrator testified to this in court.
However, the transcript excerpt attached to the order denying relief reveals that the State effectively impeached this officer concerning his inability to understand Spanish and verify the interpreter’s translation, thereby raising a doubt as to whether the victim was actually naming “Ernest” as the perpetrator. In addition, at trial the victim had no recollection of this conversation.
Consequently, the interpreter could have testified as to the victim’s identification of the perpetrator as “Ernest” with more credibility than the officer. The limited record before this court supports Stokes’s claim that his counsel’s omission was indeed prejudicial. See Gutierrez v. State, 778 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Whether this failure was a strategic decision cannot be determined from the record before this court. It is entirely possible that defense counsel may have made a viable strategic decision to rely on the officer’s statement rather than to subpoena the interpreter. This issue must be resolved by the trial court and will almost certainly require an evidentiary hearing to resolve. See Flores v. State, 662 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
BLUE and SILBERMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Stokes, 848 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…on for postconviction relief. The order in this case was entered after an evidentiary hearing upon remand from our reversal of an earlier summary denial of the motion. Because the court misconstrued our prior opinion in this matter, Stokes v. State, 787 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), we must reverse. Mr. Stokes filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 contending that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate circumstances surrounding the victim’s statement to the polic…
Authorities Cited
- Flores v. State, 662 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Gutierrez v. State, 778 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)