ROBERT BRADY, 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.
Robert Brady appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging his trial counsel's effectiveness on multiple grounds including failure to call a witness for self-defense and failure to suppress a custodial statement. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial, finding Brady's testimony not credible and that he received adequate Miranda warnings.
The trial court properly denied Brady's post-conviction motion. Brady received the functional equivalent of adequate Miranda warnings regarding the post-custody statement, and he failed to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington. Brady was not denied meaningful access to the courts on his remaining claims.
[1] A trial court does not err in denying a defendant's request for new court-appointed counsel during an evidentiary hearing if the current counsel is providing adequate ass…
[2] A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a witness must demonstrate that the witness would have provided testimony favorable to the defe…
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“Brady received the functional equivalent of adequate Miranda warnings and he failed to show prejudice under Strickland v. Washington”
Establishes the court's holding on the Miranda/suppression claim and the Strickland test requirement for ineffective assistance claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrady was charged in connection with a shooting. Before trial, Brady told his lawyer he had an alibi defense, claiming he was in St. Augustine at the …
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 Meaningful Access To The Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
Robert Brady appeals the denial of his post-conviction motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 after an evidentiary hearing on one of his claims. We affirm.
At the evidentiary hearing, Brady expressed dissatisfaction with his court-appointed attorney and requested another one. The trial court concluded that counsel was providing adequate assistance and denied the request. Brady chose to proceed with counsel.
The evidentiary hearing concerned Brady’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Brady’s cousin as a witness to support a self-defense claim. However, before trial, Brady told his lawyer that he had an alibi defense — he claimed he was in St. Augustine at the time of the shooting; never did Brady tell counsel that he was at the scene of the shooting or that he shot the victim in self-defense. Before trial, Brady told an investigator that he was in Orlando at the time of the shooting. He gave the investigator the name of a witness who supported the alibi. The investigator tried without success to confirm the alibi in North Florida. Brady denied telling his lawyer or investigator that he was in Orlando or St. Augustine at the time of the shooting.
The trial court denied relief, concluding that Brady’s testimony was not credible.
On appeal, Brady raises two arguments. That the court erred in summarily denying claim seven of his motion and that post-conviction counsel provided ineffective assistance.
In claim seven, Brady contends that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek suppression of a post-custody statement under Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). We affirm the summary denial of his claim because Brady received the functional equivalent of adequate Miranda warnings and he failed to show prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
On the remaining claim, our review of the record demonstrates that Brady was not denied meaningful access to the courts. See Kokal v. State, 901 So. 2d 766, 777 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 560, 163 L.Ed.2d 471 (2005).
Affirmed.
KLEIN and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Gorman Roberts, Jr. v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Kokal v. State, 901 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2005)