FRANKLIN MONFISTON, 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.
The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to assert a Miranda warning insufficiency claim is cognizable under rule 3.850.
Monfiston sought post-conviction relief, arguing his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a claim that Miranda warnings were insufficient, as …
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 Summary Disposition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Monfiston seeks post-conviction relief under rule 3.850 based on his counsel’s failure to assert a claim that Miranda1 warnings were insufficient for the reason we addressed in Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). It appears from the officer’s testimony in this case that Miranda warnings were read from the same sheriffs card that we found wanting in Roberts.
This court has previously recognized that such a claim may be raised under rule 3.850. E.g., Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). As in Stancle, we find Monfiston’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to be sufficient.
The state, in its brief, has proffered the portion of the record that would have been attached to the summary order from the record. We deem the generalized objections raised by counsel in that record to be insufficient to support a summary disposition.
We have considered, and reject, the state’s argument that Monfiston has waived the right to assert the Roberts issue by taking the position, regarding the motion to suppress, that no Miranda warnings were read at all.
Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Monfiston v. State, 69 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…URIAM. Affirmed. See Anthony v. State, 980 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), rev. denied, 6 So. 3d 607 (Fla.2009). Appellant argues the second claim of his postconviction motion which this court did not discuss in its remand in Monfiston v. State, 946 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). This court affirmed the summary denial of that claim in the prior appeal. GROSS, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
-
McGILL v. State, 964 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…nied, 944 So. 2d 986 (Fla.2006). We have previously held that this is a legally cognizable claim under Rule 3.850, requiring the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or an evidentiary hearing. See Monfiston v. State, 946 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Bronder v. State, 929 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Anthony v. State, 927 So. 2d 1084, 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We roundly reject the state’s argument that appellant has demonstrated no prejudice by trial counsel’s fail…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Gorman Roberts, Jr. v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)