STEPHEN HARTLEY, 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.
Stephen Hartley appealed the denial of his postconviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming his trial counsel failed to mitigate the prejudicial effect of his prior convictions and failed to elicit testimony about his previous guilty pleas. The court affirmed most grounds but reversed and remanded the ineffective assistance claim regarding prior convictions, finding the postconviction court erred by prematurely denying the claim without a proper evidentiary hearing.
The court held that Hartley's claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel were properly cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, that the postconviction court erred by summarily denying the claims without a proper evidentiary hearing, and that the matter must be remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on this ground.
[1] A defendant may be entitled to postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to mitigate the prejudicial effect of prior convictions admitt…
[2] A defendant's prior decisions to plead guilty or no contest to previous charges may be admissible to infer that the defendant proceeded to trial in the current case becau…
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“This type of testimony is admissible for the very reason Hartley asserts.”
Establishes that testimony about prior guilty pleas is legally admissible to allow inferences about current trial strategy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStephen Hartley was convicted of attempted robbery by jury. Hartley had pleaded guilty or no contest to previous charges. At trial, evidence of these …
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 Admissibility Of Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
A jury convicted Stephen Hartley of attempted robbery. He filed a timely motion for posteonvietion relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The posteonvietion court denied relief on all grounds of his motion; some it denied summarily, some after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the court’s decision without discussion on all grounds except one. We reverse the denial of Hartley’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to ameliorate the negative effect that his admissions to prior convictions might have had on the jury. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on that claim.
In pertinent part, Hartley’s motion asserted that he had pleaded guilty or no contest to his previous charges. He claimed that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to ask the court to instruct the jury that it could not consider these convictions as substantive evidence of his guilt. He also contended that his counsel should have elicited testimony from him about his previous decisions to plead so that the jury might infer that he had decided to proceed with a trial in this case because he was not guilty. This type of testimony is admissible for the very reason Hartley asserts. See Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519, 523 (Fla.1986). On direct appeal, we have reversed a conviction based on the erroneous exclusion of such testimony. Scurry v. State, 701 So. 2d 587, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); see also Bowles v. State, 849 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
Here, the postconviction court initially ruled that an evidentiary hearing was required on -this ground. But at that hearing, the court interrupted Hartley’s counsel’s attempt to present evidence in support of the claim. The court announced that it was denying the claim because “it is not and cannot be ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to ask the question as to whether or not somebody pled guilty or no contest to prior offenses.” ' In effect, the court summarily denied the claim. In Ottesen v. State, 862 So. 2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), however, the defendant asserted the same issues in his postconviction motion as Hartley does here. We held that the claims were properly raised in a rulé 3.850 motion. Therefore, in this case the postconviction court erred as a matter of law when it ruled that Hartley’s claims were not cognizable.
We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on ground nine in Hartley’s amended motion for postconviction relief.
DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lawhorne v. State, 500 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1986)
- Scurry v. State, 701 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Bowles v. State, 849 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Ottesen v. State, 862 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)