DAVID PATTERSON, 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 postconviction claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to an unauthenticated victim impact statement that violated Florida Statutes section 921.143.
A trial court errs in summarily denying a postconviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim when counsel failed to object to a victim impact statement that was not authenticated, not handwritten, not signed, and did not comply with the statutory requirement that victim or family member statements be submitted under oath.
[1] A trial court errs in summarily denying a postconviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim when counsel failed to object to a victim impact statement that violates…
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“section 921.143, Florida Statutes, requires that the victim or family member either appear before the sentencing court under oath or submit a written statement under oath to the state attorney, neither of which occurred in this case”
The court explained the statutory requirement violated by the admission of the victim's brother's letter.
During sentencing, the trial court considered a letter from the victim's brother that was not authenticated, not handwritten, not signed, and not subm…
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 Sentencing Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the circuit court erred in summarily denying the appellant’s facially sufficient third claim, we reverse as to that claim. The appellant’s remaining claims are affirmed without further comment.
The appellant’s third claim alleged that trial counsel failed to object to a letter from the victim’s brother submitted for consideration during sentencing when the letter was not authenticated, not handwritten and not signed. The circuit court held that, pursuant to section 921.143, Florida Statutes, a statement from a victim’s family member may be considered at the sentencing hearing and the appellant failed to demonstrate any error by counsel. However, section 921.143, Florida Statutes, requires that the victim or family member either appear before the sentencing court under oath or submit a written statement under oath to the state attorney, neither of which occurred in this case. Furthermore, it is apparent that the sentencing judge relied on the erroneously admitted evidence when imposing appellant’s sentence. Therefore, it appears that the circuit court erred in summarily denying this facially sufficient claim.
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of the appellant’s third claim and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
KAHN, WEBSTER, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dickie v. State, 216 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…without comment and write only to address whether the trial court’s consideration of unsworn victim impact statements during Mr. Dickie’s sentencing was improper pursuant to section 921.143(l)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2015), and Patterson v. State, 994 So. 2d 428, 429 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Having considered the merits briefs submitted by both Mr. Dickie and the State, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering the un-sworn victim impact statements when fashioning Mr. Dickie’s sen…
-
Baugh v. State, 253 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Taylor v. State, 264 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…court’s acceptance of an unsworn victim statement is error at all, based on a conflict which exists between the First District and Second District on this issue. We will address that conflict in detail. The First District, in Patterson v. State, 994 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), held that a court’s acceptance of a victim’s unsworn statement is error. There, the defendant appealed an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief. Id. at 429. He argued his counsel was ineffective when, a…