ANDRUNAE C. SCOTT, 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.
Court affirmed denial of post-conviction relief but reversed summary denial of ineffective assistance claim regarding failure to object to mugshot photograph, remanding for evidentiary hearing.
Counsel's failure to object to introduction of a mugshot photograph presents a question of ineffective assistance that cannot be summarily denied and requires an evidentiary hearing or record review on remand.
[1] Counsel's failure to object to admission of a mugshot photograph, from which a jury could infer prior criminal arrest, presents a question of ineffective assistance that…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“where photographs identified as 'police' photos had tape to cover numbers and detective was told to disregard any numbers he may have seen on pictures, question existed of whether counsel was deficient in failing to object and request curative instruction regarding the taped-up photos”
Court cited Washington v. State to establish that mugshot admission without objection presents ineffective assistance question
Appellant Scott sought post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging his conviction on multiple grounds including…
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 Curative Instruction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion for post-conviction relief brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s order in all respects except Appellant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of a mugshot photograph of him. The lower court erred when it summarily denied this claim. See Washington v. State, 705 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (where photographs identified. as “police” photos had tape to cover numbers and detective was told to disregard any numbers he may have seen on pictures, question existed of whether counsel was deficient in failing to object and request curative instruction regarding the taped-up photos).1
On remand, the trial court shall either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach portions of the record which conclusively refute this claim.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
SHARP, W., TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur. . Cardali v. State, 794 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), upon which the lower court relied, is inapposite. There, the defendant failed to describe in his motion the nature of the photograph or how its admission in evidence prejudiced him. The court’s decision to affirm the trial court was without prejudice for the defendant to file a more particular claim. Here, conversely, Appellant has alleged that the photograph is a mugshot from which the jury could have inferred a prior criminal arrest.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cardali v. State, 794 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Washington v. State, 705 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)