RONALD MCKEEHAN, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Ronald McKeehan sought mandamus relief to compel the circuit court to rule on his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court denied the petition after the trial court ruled on the underlying motion, and referred the case to the State Attorney for investigation after concluding that McKeehan had likely filed a forged letter purportedly from his trial counsel.
The court denied the petition for mandamus because the trial court had already ruled on the underlying Rule 3.850 motion. Additionally, the court concluded that McKeehan likely filed a forged letter with the court.
[1] A petition for writ of mandamus is denied when the underlying motion has already been ruled upon by the trial court.
[2] A court may direct the State Attorney to investigate potential criminal violations based on documents filed with the court.
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“It appears that Mr. McKeehan may have filed a forged letter with both this Court and with the circuit court in Orange County.”
The court's conclusion that McKeehan likely committed document forgery by submitting a fabricated letter purportedly from his trial counsel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcKeehan was convicted in a criminal matter and filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 claiming ineffective assi…
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 Fraudulent Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, J.
Ronald McKeehan seeks mandamus relief from this Court, asking us to compel the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida, to rule on his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although the petition was insufficient as a matter of law, we ordered a response from the State because Mr. McKeehan’s petition incorporated a letter, purportedly written by his trial counsel, admitting to a variety of professional sins, which, if true, would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.1 The State reported in its response that Mr. McKeehan’s counsel denied writing the letter. Indeed, the trial court, in denying Mr. McKeehan’s motion for postconviction relief, concluded that the letter was of “dubious origin” and appeared to have been “cut and photocopied together.”
It appears that Mr. McKeehan may have filed a forged letter with both this Court and with the circuit court in Orange County. We deny Mr. McKeehan’s petition for writ of mandamus, his rule 3.850 motion having been ruled on by the trial court, and direct the Clerk of this Court to provide a copy of this opinion to the State Attorney of the Ninth Judicial Circuit for investigation to determine if Mr. McKee-han has violated any criminal laws of the State of Florida.
PETITION DENIED.
SHARP, W. and PETERSON, JJ., concur. Law Office of William J. McClellan, P.A. 638 Broadway Ave. Orlando, FL 32803
Phone: 407-648-1525
Fax: 407-648-1921
February 23, 2005
Provided to Lake C.I.
3/8/05
Ronald McKeehan, X-34438
Lake Correctional Inst.
19225 U.S. Highway 27
Clermont, Florida 34715-9025
Re: State v. McKeehan, Case
No. CR01-183
Dear Mr. McKeehan:
Let me first begin my letter by stating that I understand your frustration and will do my best to explain my actions on your behalf.
Mr. McKeehan, you alleged that I did not adequately represent you in your criminal matter. Specifically, you alleged that I did not suppress the evidence or object to the authenticity of the videotape that was used at your trial. Having watched the videotape, I agree with you that the videotape is not clear and that any identification would be difficult. The videotape was inadmissible and it should have been suppressed by me.
I knew that the evidence the assistant state attorney, Ms. Brennan, introduced at your trial was manufactured and misleading. Had I moved to suppress the false and misleading evidence, the results of the proceedings at your trial would have been a lot different.
I abandoned my required duty of loyalty to you and acted with reckless disregard for my client’s best interest. My intention was to weaken your case the best I could to help the state attorney get the conviction she needed to help with the other case.
I was clearly constitutionally required to file a motion to suppress the state attorney’s evidence against my client’s best interest. In retrospect, I know that I made a very big mistake. There is sufficient proof that will establish that Ms. Brennan did engage in fraudulent conduct.
Mr. McKeehan, I hope that this letter provides you with a satisfactory explanation for my actions.
Sincerely,
William J. McClellan
Enclosures
. The letter, purportedly from McKeehan’s trial counsel, is attached to this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
R.H. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 948 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…hildren returned to her unless the court determined the safety, well-being, and physical, mental and emotional health of the children would be endangered by their return. § 39.522(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). See also D.G. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 903 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); D.S., 900 So. 2d at 632. We reject this argument. The trial court’s conclusion that the mother had not substantially completed her case plan was amply supported by the record. On remand, the trial court may choose to give the m…
-
M.M. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families, 29 So. 3d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…ion would be detrimental to the children. E.g., K.E. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 958 So. 2d 968, 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); R.H. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 948 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); D.G. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 903 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); D.S. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 900 So. 2d 628, 631-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse the final order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this binding precedent. On remand, the trial court mu…
-
K.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 227 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…of Child. & Fams., 29 So. 3d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citing K.E. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 958 So. 2d 968, 972 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); R.H. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 948 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); D.G. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 903 So. 2d 1042, 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); D.S. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 900 So. 2d 628, 631-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)); see also B.W. v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 114 So. 3d 243, 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Here, the trial court ordered Mother to comply with a case…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence