RICO YOUNG, 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.
Rico Young appealed a postconviction denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The court found error in the summary denial of Young's claim that trial counsel failed to argue in the motion for new trial that the weight of the evidence did not support the verdict, reversing and remanding on that issue while affirming the remainder of the postconviction court's rulings.
The court reversed the summary denial of Young's motion for new trial claim, finding that the postconviction court failed to attach documents refuting the claim and applied the wrong legal standard. The court affirmed the postconviction court's denial of all other grounds raised in the ineffective assistance motion.
[1] A postconviction court may summarily deny a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel only if the claim is conclusively refuted by the record.
[2] A motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence is distinct from a motion for a judgment of acquittal, which is based on the sufficiency of the evidence.
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“A trial court may grant a motion for new trial when the weight of the evidence, though technically sufficient, does not appear to support, the jurors' verdict.”
Establishes the distinct legal standard for motions for new trial based on weight of evidence, as opposed to sufficiency of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRico Young was convicted and filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel under Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. The postconvi…
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 Greater Weight Of The Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge.
Rico Young filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. The court denied all grounds raised in his motion, some summarily, some after an evidentiary hearing. Young challenges many of the court’s rulings, but we find error only in the summary denial of his claim concerning counsel’s failure to argue in his motion for new trial that the weight of the evidence did not support the verdict. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on this claim; we affirm the rest of the postconviction court’s rulings without discussion.
In rejecting Young’s claim regarding the motion for new trial, the postconviction court reasoned that “counsel moved for a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal arguing that the State failed to prove a prima facie case on all counts.... ” It did not attach any portions of the record, such as the motion for new trial, the trial court’s ruling on the motion, or a transcript of the hearing held on the motion, that might conclusively demonstrate that Young was not entitled to relief. See Wilson v. State, 801 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
A trial court may grant a motion for new trial when the weight of the evidence, though technically sufficient, does not appear to support, the jurors’ verdict. Geibel v. State, 817 So. 2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). A motion for judgment of acquittal, on the other hand, is determined under the “sufficiency” of the evidence standard, not the “weight” of the evidence standard used in determining whether a new trial is appropriate. Id.; see also Ferebee v. State, 967 So. 2d 1071, 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The postconviction court’s discussion of a “Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal” demonstrates that it applied the wrong legal standard to Young’s claim.
We reverse the summary denial of the claim based on counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance concerning the new trial motion because the postconviction court failed to attach documents that would refute the claim and because the court applied the wrong legal standard. We remand for a reconsideration of this claim. If the record refutes Young’s claim, the court may again deny it but must attach the relevant documents. If the record does not refute the claim, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Geibel v. State, 817 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Ferebee v. State, 967 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Wilson v. State, 801 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)