MICHAEL MONTEZ RHODES, 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's summary denial of a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence based on a broken chain of custody for cocaine, while affirming the denial of all other claims.
A trial court errs in summarily denying a facially sufficient ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress evidence when the claim is not conclusively refuted by the record.
[1] A trial court may not summarily deny a facially sufficient ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Rule 3.850 unless the claim is conclusively refuted by the record…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Because this is a facially sufficient claim which is not conclusively refuted by the attachments to the order, the trial court erred in summarily denying the claim.”
The court explaining why summary denial was improper for the chain of custody claim.
Appellant Rhodes was convicted and alleged that his trial counsel failed to file a motion to suppress cocaine evidence despite a discrepancy in the ch…
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 Facial Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court summarily denied each of the claims raised in the appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. All but one of the claims were properly denied.
‘The appellant alleged in his motion that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence based upon the prosecution’s inability to establish a proper chain of custody. The appellant contends that both the confidential source and the arresting officer testified in depositions that a single piece of a substance suspected to be cocaine was taken from him and surrendered to the Baker County evidence custodian; however, two pieces of cocaine were received from the Baker County Sheriffs Office for testing. The appellant alleges that if his counsel had filed a motion to suppress asserting the prosecution’s inability to establish a proper chain of custody, the court would have suppressed the cocaine, and the case against him would have been dismissed. Because this is a facially sufficient claim which is not conclusively refuted by the attachments to the order, the trial court erred in summarily denying the claim. See Doss v. State, 644 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The appealed order is accordingly reversed as to the trial court’s disposition of this claim, but is otherwise affirmed, and this case is remanded.
ALLEN, WOLF, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hampton, 44 So. 3d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…n issue in this case. . We recognize that an attorney's failure to object to the admission of evidence when the chain of custody is incurably defective would support a postconviction claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. See Rhodes v. State, 981 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (remanding for trial court to conduct evidentiary hearing on defendant's claim that counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress cocaine based on the State's inability to establish chain of custody).…
Authorities Cited
- Doss v. State, 644 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)