CHARLIE JACKSON, 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.
Charlie Jackson appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction Rule 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to introduce medical testimony. The court reverses in part, finding that an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether counsel's decision to forgo available medical expert testimony was strategic or constituted ineffective assistance.
The court reversed in part, holding that the record does not conclusively establish that counsel's decision not to call the deposed physicians was strategic, and therefore an evidentiary hearing is required. The court affirmed the postconviction court's denial of the motion in all other respects.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may require an evidentiary hearing to determine if counsel's decisions were strategic or the product of ineptitude.
[2] An evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not required when the record conclusively demonstrates that counsel's decision was strategic.
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“Although strategic decisions generally do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to determine whether counsel's decisions were the product of strategy or ineptitude.”
Establishes the legal standard that strategic decisions are not ineffective assistance but may require a hearing to determine whether a decision was actually strategic
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was convicted by jury of sexual battery and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a Rule 3.850 motion claiming his trial counsel was ineffe…
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 Conclusively Refute cases and more on FLexlaw
[*486] CASANUEVA, Judge.
Charlie Jackson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the record does not conclusively refute Mr. Jackson’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce certain medical testimony, we reverse in part. We affirm the postconviction court’s order in all other respects.
Mr. Jackson was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual battery and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In his rule 3.850 motion, Mr. Jackson contended that his counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce into evidence a medical evaluation report and for failing to call medical experts to testify that there was no evidence that the victim had been penetrated. The postconviction court found that defense counsel’s decisions were strategic and denied Mr. Jackson’s motion.
Although strategic decisions generally do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary to determine whether counsel’s decisions were the product of strategy or ineptitude. See Hamilton v. State, 915 So. 2d 1228, 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sampson v. State, 751 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, an evidentiary hearing is not required when it is obvious from the record that counsel’s decision was strategic. See State v. Williams, 797 So. 2d 1235, 1239 (Fla.2001); see also McNeal v. Wainwright, 722 F. 2d 674, 676 (11th Cir.1984).
Here, Mr. Jackson claims that certain identifiable expert medical witnesses were not subpoenaed for trial, although each had been deposed previously, and that the introduction of the medical testimony would have contributed to a verdict of not guilty. The postconviction court did find that two physicians had been deposed pri-or to trial. However, it concluded that a decision to offer or forgo such medical testimony at trial was a strategic decision by defense counsel. See Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037, 1048 (Fla.2000).
On the face of this record we cannot conclude that the trial counsel’s decision was strategic. Nor can we conclude that the decision not to call the physicians to testify at trial was obviously strategic. Further, there are no record attachments that clearly refute Mr. Jackson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to hold an evidentiary hearing on this claim or to attach those portions of the record which conclusively refute Mr. Jackson’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce the medical evidence or expert testimony that was readily available. In all other respects, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
WHATLEY and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hamilton v. State, 979 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…State, 915 So. 2d 1228, 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Sampson v. State, 751 So. 2d 602, 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)), “an evidentiary hearing is not required when it is obvious from the record that counsel’s decision was strategic,” Jackson v. State, 975 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). It must be noted, however, that “[w]here an evidentiary hearing has not been held, a movant’s allegations in a motion for postconviction relief must be accepted as true except to the extent that the allegations are conclusiv…
-
Efrain Maldonado v. State, 183 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…g that a defendant is entitled to an evidentia-ry hearing on a postconviction relief claim unless the motion and record conclusively show that he or she is entitled to no relief or where the claim is legally insufficient); see also Jackson v. State, 975 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Although strategic decisions generally do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, an eviden-tiary hearing may be necessary to determine whether counsel’s decisions were the product of strategy or ineptitude.”); Wi…
-
Vanauken v. State, 51 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…finding that action or inaction by defense counsel was tactical is generally inappropriate without evidentiary hearing). An evidentiary hearing can be avoided only when it is obvious from the record that the decision was strategic. Jackson v. State, 975 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Finally, the trial court concluded that claim five should have been raised on direct appeal. Again, we disagree. As a general rule, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal and can only be…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Occhicone v. State, 768 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 2000)
- McNEAL v. Louie L. Wainwright, 722 F.2d 674 (11th Cir. 1984)
- State v. Williams, 797 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 2001)
- Sampson v. State, 751 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Hamilton v. State, 915 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)