DAVID CRAMER, 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.
David Cramer appeals the summary denial of his postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to him being tried while shackled and wearing jail-issued clothing. The court reverses, holding that Cramer stated a facially sufficient claim for relief that requires an evidentiary hearing.
Cramer stated a facially sufficient ground for postconviction relief. The trial court erred in summarily denying his motion without holding an evidentiary hearing or reviewing the record to determine whether his allegations were refuted.
[1] A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to a fair trial, which includes the presumption of innocence, and cannot be compelled to stand trial in prison clothing.
[2] The presumption of innocence can be impaired by requiring a defendant to stand trial in shackles, but this risk may be outweighed by the need for courtroom safety and sec…
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 criminal defendant cannot be compelled to stand trial in prison clothing because it could impair the defendant's presumption of innocence, which is a basic component of the fundamental right to a fair trial.”
Establishes the fundamental principle protecting defendants from being tried in prison clothing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCramer was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to five years as a prison re-leasee reoffender. He was tried before a jury whi…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
David Cramer appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.
Cramer was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment as a prison re-leasee reoffender. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed, he filed a rule 3.850 motion alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Cramer being tried before a jury while shackled and wearing a jail-issued jumpsuit.
A criminal defendant cannot be compelled to stand trial in prison clothing because it could impair the defendant’s presumption of innocence, which is a basic component of the fundamental right to a fair trial. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976); Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla.1988). Placing the defendant in restraints such as shackles or handcuffs can also affect the defendant’s presumption of innocence, but under proper circumstances this risk may be outweighed by the court’s obligation to maintain safety and security in the courtroom. See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Diaz v. State, 513 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.1987). Here, Cramer’s motion alleged that if, upon objection by counsel, the trial court had inquired into the matter it would have concluded that he presented no security risk during his trial. Nevertheless, the circuit court summarily denied Cramer’s motion, citing Buenoano v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 1116 (Fla.1990), for the proposition that he should have raised this issue on direct appeal.
Buenoano does not control this case. In Buenoano, the defendant alleged that she was deprived of a fair trial because she stood trial while wearing leg irons. She did not allege that her counsel was ineffective for failing to object. In contrast, in Sims v. State, 602 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1992), the defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to object when Sims was brought into the courtroom wearing shackles. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, but not because it should have been raised on appeal. Rather, the court held that Sims’s trial counsel-made a reasonable strategic decision not to object because it was possible the jury did not see the shackles and counsel did not want to call the jurors’ attention to them.
Cramer’s motion alleged a facially sufficient ground for relief. See Pineda v. State, 805 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Waters v. State, 779 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute Cramer’s claim.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
WHATLEY and SALCINES, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008)…iary hearing could be held. The Second District Court of Appeal has likewise remanded for an evidentiary hearing where a defendant alleged trial counsel was ineffective for allowing him to be tried in shackles and a prison jumpsuit. Cramer v. State, 843 So. 2d 372, 372-73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Because of the express and unambiguous allegations of the defendant’s postcon-viction motion stating that defendant was shackled in view of the jury, considered with the strong presumption against the permissibility of s…
-
Miller v. State, 852 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…e ineffective for failing to preserve the issue of being compelled to stand trial in identifiable prison clothes. See Palmer v. State, 831 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Pineda v. State, 805 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Cramer v. State, 843 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Waters v. State, 779 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). These cases require a hearing in this case. To raise the issue of prison garb or restraints on direct appeal, a defendant must object at trial. The holding of Bello v. State,…
-
Hodges v. State, 946 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ts to the order of denial refuted it. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings as to this claim. See Filias v. State, 901 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Miller v. State, 852 So. 2d 904, 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Cramer v. State, 843 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). We affirm as to the remaining grounds for relief. Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded. STONE, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1970)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976)
- Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1988)
- Sims v. State, 602 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1992)
- Buenoano v. Dugger, 559 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Casseus, 513 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1987)
- Diaz v. State, 513 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1987)
- Pineda v. State, 805 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Johnson v. State, 779 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Perry v. State, 779 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)