KEVIN SHARPE, 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affirmed denial of postconviction relief for burglary with battery conviction, holding that consent to premises is withdrawn upon commission of battery, so ineffective assistance claim based on unavailable consent witnesses lacks merit.
Consent to enter premises is withdrawn upon commission of battery, so a claim of ineffective assistance based on failure to present consent witnesses lacks merit under Strickland.
[1] Consent to enter premises is withdrawn upon commission of battery, precluding an ineffective assistance claim based on failure to present consent witnesses.
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 intelligenceAppellant grabbed and choked his separated wife to unconsciousness. He was convicted of burglary with battery and sought postconviction relief claimin…
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 Withdrawal Of Consent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief from his conviction for burglary with a battery. The charge arose from an incident in which the appellant grabbed his wife, from whom he was separated, and choked her to unconsciousness. He claims that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him leave to amend his motion. In his initial motion, he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call witnesses who could provide evidence which would tend to prove that he had consent to be on the premises at the time of the incident. He failed to allege the availability of the witnesses and requested leave to amend, pursuant to Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla.2004).
The trial court denied the motion, concluding that availability did not cure the other legal insufficiency of the motion. In particular, the trial court noted that under section 810.015, Florida Statutes (2002), even if appellant had consent for the initial entry, such consent was withdrawn once he committed the act of battery.
Therefore, appellant has not shown that he was prejudiced by the absence of these witnesses. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
WARNER, SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Duval County) (M.D. Fla. 2022)…cumstantial evidence.” § 810.015(3); see Sparre v. State, 164 So. 3d 1183, 1200-01 (Fla. 2015) (reasoning defendant’s invitation into victim’s residence was effectively rescinded when defendant began stabbing victim); Sharpe v. State, 941 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (approving trial court’s reasoning that “even if appellant had consent for the initial entry, such consent was withdrawn once he committed the act of battery.”). Through Defendant’s admission, it is clear he entered…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)