JAMIE MAURICE DESIRE A/K/A JAMIE NIVOL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Jamie Maurice Desire appeals his convictions for armed carjacking, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to file a suppression motion and ensure a proper hearing. The Third District Court of Appeal affirms, finding that a suppression hearing was actually conducted and the motion was reconsidered by new counsel prior to trial.
No. Although the initial attorney did not file a motion to suppress, a suppression hearing was in fact conducted, the trial court made specific findings that the statement was freely and voluntarily made, and the subsequently-appointed counsel reconsidered the motion to suppress prior to trial. Therefore, neither attorney's representation was ineffective.
[1] Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal unless the error is apparent on the face of the record.
[2] A defendant's pre-trial statement is admissible if it was freely and voluntarily made and does not violate Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment protections.
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“As a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not ordinarily cognizable on direct appeal. The exception is when the error is apparent on the face of the record, which is rarely the case.”
Establishes the legal standard for reviewing ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDesire was charged with multiple offenses arising from an armed carjacking of a UPS truck. At the time of charging, he was on probation in two other c…
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 Motion To Suppress cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
Jamie Maurice Desire, a/k/a Jamie Nivol (“Desire”) appeals his convictions for multiple offenses arising out of his participation in an armed carjacking of a UPS truck. The sole claim raised by Desire is a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm.
The record reflects that, at the time Desire was charged with committing the offenses in this case, he was on probation in two other cases. A probation violation hearing was conducted on September 22, 2003, and a jury trial was commenced nearly one year later on August 30, 2004. Desire claims he was denied a fair trial due to his lawyer’s failure to “prepare” a motion to suppress Desire’s pre-trial statement for the probation violation hearing, and trial counsel’s failure to ensure that he had a “proper” hearing on his motion to suppress prior to trial.
As a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not ordinarily cognizable on direct appeal. The exception is when the error is apparent on the face of the record, which is rarely the case. See Bradberry v. State, 922 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Lambert v. State, 811 So. 2d 805, 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Thompson v. State, 764 So. 2d 630, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
Based upon the record before us, we see no reason to deviate from that rule. While Desire’s attorney did not file a motion to suppress Desire’s statement for the probation violation hearing, the record reflects that a hearing to suppress his statement was in fact conducted prior to the probation violation hearing, and the trial court specifically concluded that Desire’s statement was freely and voluntarily made and did not violate the protections of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments to the Constitution.1 Prior to the trial of the substantive charges, the Assistant Public Defender who had been representing Desire, was permitted to withdraw and new counsel was appointed. The transcript which has been made a part of this record, reflects that Desire’s subsequently-appointed counsel read a transcript of the suppression hearing conducted prior to the probation violation hearing, prepared a written motion to suppress which was based upon the same grounds previously litigated, and the trial court again denied the motion. As it is clear a suppression hearing was conducted prior to the probation violation hearing, the trial court made specific findings that the statement was freely and voluntarily made, and Desire’s motion to suppress his statement was reconsidered by the trial court prior to trial, we cannot conclude on the face of the record that either of the attorneys who represented Desire provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
Affirmed.
. Desire's attorney explained that she had not filed a motion to suppress Desire's statement because Desire claimed that he had not made a statement. After discussions with the trial court, however, a suppression hearing was conducted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawrence v. State, 969 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2007)…ce of counsel claim on direct appeal. See, e.g., Bruno v. State, 807 So. 2d 55, 63 n. 14 (Fla.2001) (“A claim of ineffectiveness can properly be raised on direct appeal only if the record on its face demonstrates ineffectiveness.”); Desire v. State, 928 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“As a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not ordinarily cognizable on direct appeal. The exception is when the error is apparent on the face of the record, which is rarely the case.”) In turning…
-
Nairn v. State, 978 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…in cross-examination. “As a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not ordinarily cognizable on direct appeal. The exception is when the error is apparent on the face of the record, which is rarely the case.” Desire v. State, 928 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Bruno v. State, 807 So. 2d 55, 63 n. 14 (Fla.2001) (“A claim of ineffectiveness can properly be raised on direct appeal only if the record on its face demonstrates ineffectiveness.”); see, e.g., Aversano v. State, 966 So. 2…
-
Debose v. State, 163 So. 3d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ent on the face of the record, we affirm without prejudice to the defendant to file a timely postcon-viction motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Kidd v. State, 978 So. 2d 868, 868-69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Desire v. State, 928 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lambert v. State, 811 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Thompson v. State, 764 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Bradberry v. State, 922 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)