MICHAEL KIJEWSKI, 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.
Michael Kijewski appealed the summary denial of a post-conviction motion raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of three claims but reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on two claims involving counsel's failure to investigate and present a voluntary intoxication defense.
The court affirmed summary denial of claims one, two, and three, but reversed and remanded on claims four and five. Claims one and two were properly denied because appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. Claim three was improperly raised in a post-conviction relief motion. Claims four and five stated facially sufficient claims for ineffective assistance that required either an evidentiary hearing or supplemental record evidence conclusively refuting the claims.
[1] A claim of prosecutorial misconduct is not cognizable in a motion for post-conviction relief.
[2] A post-conviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to investigate and present a voluntary intoxication defense to a specific intent cri…
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“A post-conviction claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present a defense of voluntary intoxication to a specific intent crime is a facially sufficient claim.”
Establishes that ineffective assistance claims based on failure to present voluntary intoxication defense state legally sufficient grounds for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKijewski was charged with robbery with a deadly weapon. His trial defense consisted of attempting to discredit the victim's testimony, and he did not …
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.
Appellant Michael Kijewski appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief alleging four claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and one claim of prosecutorial misconduct. We find no error in the trial court’s summary denial of claims one and two alleging ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), based on appellant’s failure to adequately demonstrate any prejudice by the alleged deficiencies of counsel.
Appellant’s third claim, alleging prosecutorial misconduct, is inappropriate for a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, and therefore was properly denied. See generally McCrae v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.1983); Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla.1980).
As for appellant’s claims four and five, we find that the trial court erred in summarily denying relief. Appellant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on a failure to investigate and present a voluntary intoxication defense to the charge of robbery with a deadly weapon, and for failure to advise him that such a defense was available to him given the date of his offense, which predated the statute eliminating voluntary intoxication as a defense. § 775.051, Fla. Stat. (1999) (effective October 1,1999).
A post-conviction claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present a defense of voluntary intoxication to a specific intent crime is a facially sufficient claim. See Wilson v. State, 696 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Counsel may make a tactical decision not to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense, but a trial court’s finding that such a decision was tactical usually is inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing. See Guisasola v. State, 667 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Here, voluntary intoxication was a proper defense to the robbery charged. See Kitchen v. State, 764 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
This court is unable to assess the trial court’s reasoning in denying appellant’s fourth claim without either a record of an evidentiary hearing or portions of the record attached to the trial court’s order demonstrating conclusively that appellant is not entitled to relief. See, e.g., Bartley v. State, 689 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The portions of the record attached to the order in the instant case did not adequately refute appellant’s claim on this ground.
Appellant’s fifth claim is intertwined with claim four, as appellant alleges that his defense counsel failed to inform him that voluntary intoxication was a defense. This was based on counsel’s belief, apparently, that the defense was not available to appellant.
Appellant did not testify at trial. His defense was an attempt to discredit the victim’s testimony. Under these circumstances, counsel could have investigated and presented a voluntary intoxication defense in this case. Appellant has alleged a sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on this claim.
We affirm the summary denial of claims one, two and three, but reverse and remand for attachment of other portions of the record refuting claims four and five, or an evidentiary hearing on claims four and five.
AFFIRM IN PART, REVERSE AND REMAND IN PART.
KLEIN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Straitwell v. State, 834 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…State, 662 So. 2d 1350, 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We have also concluded that a trial court’s finding that counsel made a tactical decision not to pursue the defense usually is inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing. See id.; Kijewski v. State, 831 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). We agree with Straitwell’s argument that the plea transcript did not refute his claim as to the voluntary intoxication defense. Accordingly, we reverse the order summarily denying the motion for postcon-viction relief and reman…
-
Sneed v. State, 891 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…at his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present a voluntary intoxication defense. Because the record does not conclusively refute this allegation, we reverse for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Kijewski v. State, 831 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). WARNER, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- McCRAE v. State, 437 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 1983)
- Adams v. State, 380 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 1980)
- Guisasola v. State, 667 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Kitchen v. State, 764 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- 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)
- Mitchell v. State, 696 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)