JAMES L. MURPHY, 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.
James L. Murphy appealed the trial court's summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion raising five claims for relief. The appellate court reversed the denial of two claims (ineffective assistance of counsel regarding plea advice and additional jail credit) while affirming denial of the remaining three claims.
The court reversed the summary denial of two facially sufficient claims: the ineffective assistance of counsel claims regarding misadvice about evidence admissibility, and the jail credit claim. The court affirmed without further comment the denial of the three remaining claims.
[1] A defendant may present evidence under the "reverse Williams rule" if it tends to establish reasonable doubt of guilt, subject to general relevance principles.
[2] Evidence of a prior allegation of abuse is inadmissible if it was investigated, found not credible, and no charges were filed.
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“reverse Williams rule evidence would be admissible by a defendant where the 'evidence tends in any way, even indirectly, to establish a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt,' subject to the general principle of relevance applied to all other evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for admissibility of defense evidence that could negate guilt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurphy filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 asserting five claims for relief. Two claims involved allegations …
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 Waiver Of Jail Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion the appellant raises five claims for post-conviction relief. Because two of the claims are facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted by record attachments, we reverse the trial court’s order denying these claims; the denial of the three remaining claims are affirmed without further comment.
The appellant alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for misadvising him that a defense based on “reverse Williams1 rule” evidence would not be available to him.
However, reverse Williams rule evidence would be admissible by a defendant where the “evidence tends in any way, even indirectly, to establish a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt,” subject to the general principle of relevance applied to all other evidence. Rivera v. State, 561 So. 2d 536, 539 (Fla.1990).
Further, the appellant alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that the state would be able to admit certain Williams rule evidence against him. The appellant alleges that the proposed evidence was a prior complaint against him of abuse which was investigated and resolved without any charges being filed. If, true, such evidence would not be admissible. See Audano v. State, 641 So. 2d 1356, 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (holding that it was error to admit evidence of a prior allegation of abuse where that allegation was investigated, it was previously concluded that the allegation was not credible, and no charges were filed).
The appellant alleges that but for the alleged misadvice, he would not have entered into his plea agreement and would have elected to proceed to trial. While the trial court concluded that the appellant failed to meet his burden for alleging prejudice, in the case of an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel arising in the context of a guilty plea, such an allegation is sufficient. Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364, 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
Accordingly, the trial court’s summary denial of this claim was error. The appellant’s fifth claim is a facially sufficient allegation that he is entitled to additional jail credit pursuant to Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla.2003). Contrary to the trial court’s determination, jail credit claims are cognizable in motions filed pursuant to rule 3.850. See e.g. Mills v. State, 911 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
Therefore, because the trial court failed to attach record portions that refute the appellant’s facially sufficient claim for additional jail credit the denial of this claim was also error. Further, contrary to the state’s assertion, the record of the proceedings below do not evidence a clear and knowing waiver of entitlement to additional jail credit. Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025, 1026-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that the trial “court records must establish the defendant’s clear intent to waive a portion of his” accrued jail time in order to deny a facially sufficient motion for additional jail credit on the grounds of a waiver)
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the facially sufficient claims discussed herein and remand for either attachment of record portions refuting the appellant’s claims or an evidentiary hearing. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
DAVIS, POLSTON, and HAWKES, JJ., concur. . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 968 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…time served as of 7/31/2006 is 1,531 days.” We do not view this statement in the plea agreement as conclusive evidence that Appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived jail credit to which he would otherwise be legally entitled. See Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (finding waiver of jail credit must be clear and knowing); Silverstein v. State, 654 So. 2d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (holding waiver of jail time credit must be specific, voluntary, and clearly shown on the record). I…
-
Giggetts v. State, 5 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…of jail credit cannot be shown merely by a defendant’s stipulation to a certain amount of credit in the absence of evidence that the defendant knew of his entitlement to additional credit and voluntarily relinquished that right. See Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (the record must establish a “clear and knowing waiver of entitlement to additional jail credit”); Davis v. State, 968 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (written plea agreement that called for 1,531 days of credit was not conc…
-
Hines v. State, 4 So. 3d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…nt of credit for time served. However, the record does not show a specific voluntary waiver of this jail credit. See Davis v. State, 968 So. 2d 1051, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Tribble v. State, 948 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Murphy v. State, 930 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Silverstein v. State, 654 So. 2d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Hines alleges under oath that he was arrested on March 12, 2006 in Brevard County on Broward County charges. H…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Gethers v. State, 838 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2003)
- Rivera v. State, 561 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1990)
- Audano v. State, 641 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Brazeail v. State, 821 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Kalishea Reed v. State, 810 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Haines v. State, 851 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Mills v. State, 911 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)