RICHARD COOPER, 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 court held that the motion for postconviction relief set forth one colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that was not conclusively refuted by the record.
Richard Cooper appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a w…
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 Exculpatory Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
[*313] STRINGER, Judge.
Richard Cooper appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. We conclude the motion sets forth one colorable claim. In his first claim for relief, Mr. Cooper alleges his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a community control supervisor as an exculpatory witness to testify she gave Mr. Cooper permission to postpone having a Global Positioning System (GPS) monitor on. This allegation satisfies rule 3.850(c) and the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla.1999); Honors v. State, 752 So. 2d 1234, 1235-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
The portion of the record the trial court attached to its order summarily denying Mr. Cooper’s motion does not refute this claim conclusively. We take judicial notice of this court’s record of Mr. Cooper’s plenary appeal of his community control violation, which includes the revocation hearing transcript to which the trial court refers in its order. Review of that transcript shows the order describes accurately the testimony of the community control officer upon which the court relied to deny this claim, that his supervisor told him Mr. Cooper never mentioned the GPS monitor when she talked to him. However, if Mr. Cooper’s counsel had called the officer’s supervisor to testify and her testimony was what he claimed it would be— that she told Mr. Cooper not to worry about having the GPS monitor put on — the outcome of the proceeding likely would have been different.
Therefore, the community control officer’s hearing testimony does not refute this claim conclusively. Accordingly, the trial court’s summary denial of this claim is reversed, and this case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of the remaining claims.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA and COVINGTON, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weeks v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological, 977 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 503 So. 2d 415, 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Barry Hinnant, Inc., v. Spottswood, 481 So. 2d 80, 81 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Ashman v. State, 886 So. 2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Cooper v. State, 845 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). . Section 766.316 was amended, effective July 1, 2007, by chapter 2007-230, section 205, Laws of Florida, to substitute a reference to section 395.002(8)(b) for the reference to section 395.002(9)(b) in the last sentence because…
-
Scott Ellis as Brevard Cnty. Clerk of Court v. Hunter, 3 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 503 So. 2d 415, 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Barry Hinnant, Inc., v. Spottswood, 481 So. 2d 80, 81 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Ashman v. State, 886 So. 2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Cooper v. State, 845 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Having done so, it is clear from those records that the petitioner in Biddle challenged the constitutionality of section 903.286 on the basis of due process, equal protection, and eminent domain. The same arguments directed to ea…
-
Tribbitt v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…appertain to the case before it for consideration." See McNish v. State, 36 So. 176, 176 (Fla. 1904); see also Foxworth v. Wainwright, 167 So. 2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1964); Harrison v. State, 198 So. 3d 765, 767 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); Cooper v. State, 845 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Jones v. State, 226 So. 3d 1012, 1014 n.2 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Cabrera v. State, 62 So. 3d 1171, 1173 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Maultsby v. State, 741 So. 2d 1265, 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Moreover, taking notice of these re…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)
- Honors v. State, 752 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)