JUAN YANES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Juan Yanes appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion on six grounds. The court affirmed the denial on three issues (peremptory strikes against Hispanic jurors, ambiguous jury composition record, and one other claim) but reversed and remanded on three issues (sentencing guidelines calculation, alleged failure to investigate exculpatory witnesses, and ineffective assistance regarding a suppressed statement and plea offer) because the postconviction record did not conclusively refute those claims.
The court affirmed denial on points one, two, and six; reversed and remanded on points three, four, and five. For points three, four, and five, the postconviction record did not conclusively refute the defendant's claims, requiring reversal and either an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief under the appellate standard.
[1] Postconviction relief cannot be granted for a lawyer's error in jury selection unless the error resulted in a jury that was not impartial.
[2] A court must reverse the summary denial of a postconviction relief motion unless the record conclusively shows the appellant is not entitled to relief.
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“On an appeal from a summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record shows conclusively that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for summary denials of postconviction motions, requiring reversal when the record does not conclusively refute claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYanes sought postconviction relief raising six claims: (1) counsel should have objected to peremptory strikes against Hispanic jurors; (2) the trial r…
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 Peremptory Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of an order denying a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
In point one, defendant-appellant Yanes maintains that his counsel should have objected to two of the State’s peremptory strikes which were made against Hispanic jurors. We affirm the denial of relief on authority of Carratelli v. State, 915 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (en banc), approved, SC06-97 (Fla. July 26, 2007), and Phillips v. Crosby, 894 So. 2d 28, 36 (Fla.2004). Both cases take the position that postconviction relief cannot be granted in this context unless the lawyer’s error resulted in a jury that was not impartial.
We affirm the denial of relief on defendant’s point two. During jury selection the State exercised a peremptory challenge against juror Alvarez. At some places the trial court record indicates that juror Alvarez did not serve, while at other places the trial court record indicates that juror Alvarez did serve on the jury. The State asserts that this is probably a transcription error but acknowledges that a conclusive, determination cannot be made on the basis of the present record. We affirm the denial of relief on the authority of the cases just cited,- and James v. State, 843 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).
On’ defendant’s point three, he alleges that his sentencing guidelines score was calculated under the wrong score-sheet. On an ’ appeal from a summary denial of a Rule 3.850 motion, this court must reverse unless the postconviction record-shows conclusively that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). The postconviction record now before us does not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim, so we reverse on point three. As to the applicable version of the guidelines, see Cairl v. State, 833 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (en banc). As to the test for harmless error in this context, see State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla.2005).
As to defendant’s point four, the post-conviction record likewise does not conclusively refute the defendant’s claim. See Ford v. State, 825 So. 2d 358, 361 (Fla.2002) (“An evidentiary hearing should have been required in order to resolve whether what counsel did was tactical.”) “ ‘[A] claim that trial counsel failed to investigate or call exculpatory witnesses [when] facially sufficient ... must either be refuted by attachments or an evidentiary hearing held.’ ” Id. at 361 (citation omitted); Jacobs v. State, 880 So. 2d 548 (Fla.2004); Gonzalez v. State, 913 So. 2d 707, 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Honors v. State, 752 So. 2d 1234, 1235-36 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We reverse on point four. The postconviction record does not conclusively refute defendant’s point five. The defendant claims that his counsel misadvised him that his statement to the police would be suppressed, and persuaded him to turn down a plea offer on the basis of that misadvice. We reverse on point five and remand for further proceedings on authority of Sharpe v. State, 861 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), and Gomez v. State, 832 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Contra Morgan v. State, 941 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (certifying direct conflict with Gomez and Sharpe), rev. granted, No. SC06-2350, 956 So. 2d 456.
We affirm the denial of relief on point six.
With regard to those issues on which we reverse, we remand for an evidentiary hearing or other appropriate relief. If the trial court again enters an order summarily denying the postconviction motion, the court shall attach record excerpts conclusively showing that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2008)…es, 909 So. 2d at 523.1 In several cases concerning attorneys advising their clients to reject plea offers, the Third District has held that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance. See Yanes v. State, 960 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Sharpe, 861 So. 2d at 484; Gomez, 832 So. 2d at 794. The defendant in Gomez filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffectiveness of counsel because counsel advised the defendant to reject a plea offer from the State because cou…
-
Pryear v. State, 243 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Jones v. State, 10 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…4. Since the issuance of our supreme court’s opinion in Carratelli, the Third District has applied Carrutetti’s holding to a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel predicated upon the failure to raise a Neil objection. See Yanes v. State, 960 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). There, the defendant claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s exercise of peremptory strikes against two Hispanic jurors. The appellate court affirmed the summary denial of such claim, citing Car-ratel…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- State v. Anderson, 905 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2005)
- Alwin J. Jacobs v. State, 880 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2004)
- Ford v. State, 825 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2002)
- Phillips v. State, 894 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2004)
- Honors v. State, 752 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Carratelli v. State, 915 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Cairl v. State, 833 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Owens v. State, 832 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- James v. State, 843 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Sharpe v. State, 861 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)