JERMAINE WRIGHT, 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 court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief on four ineffective assistance of counsel and fundamental error claims, but remanded for an evidentiary hearing on a fifth claim that trial counsel coerced Wright to testify and made false sentencing promises.
Four postconviction claims were properly denied as conclusively refuted, procedurally barred, or without merit, but a fifth claim regarding counsel coercing testimony and making false sentencing promises must be addressed by the trial court on remand.
[1] A postconviction claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on coercion to testify and false sentencing promises must be addressed by the trial court through an evi…
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 intelligenceJermaine Wright filed a postconviction motion raising five claims: ineffective assistance for questioning a police officer and failing to depose a wit…
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 Coerced Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
Jermaine Wright challenges the summary denial of his postconviction motion. His first two claims alleged trial counsel was ineffective in questioning a police officer at trial and failing to depose a witness before trial. The next two claims alleged the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting hearsay evidence at trial and then convicting him in the absence of sufficient evidence of guilt. We affirm the denial of relief on these four claims, as each was either conclusively refuted by the record, procedurally barred, or otherwise without merit.
Wright’s fifth and final postconviction claim alleged counsel was ineffective for coercing him to testify and telling him what to say on the stand. He further claimed counsel misadvised that if he testified, counsel would ensure he was sentenced to only three years’ imprisonment on the lesser charge of aiding and abetting. Wright asserted that the outcome of the trial would have been different if counsel had not forced him to testify. The trial court did not address this claim and the limited portions of the record before us do not refute it.
Therefore, we remand for the trial court to either hold an evidentiary hearing on ground five or attach those portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
SAWAYA and COHEN, JJ., concur.