JULIO MUNIZ, 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.
Julio Muniz appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds. The Fifth District reversed the denial as to two grounds—failure to challenge a biased juror and failure to timely deny a claim regarding lack of interpreter services—and affirmed the denial as to all other grounds.
The court reversed the denial of relief on ground six because the circuit court did not conclusively refute that counsel was ineffective for failing to attempt rehabilitation of the biased juror or seek removal, resulting in a biased juror serving on the jury. The court reversed the denial on ground twelve because the supplemental motion containing the new ground was filed within the two-year limitation period and before the trial court issued a final order, making it timely and not successive.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to challenge a juror for cause may be established where the juror expressed bias on the record and counsel failed…
[2] New grounds raised in a timely supplement to a postconviction motion are not untimely if filed before the trial court issues a final order.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the circuit court's attachments to the order denying relief did not conclusively refute Muniz's claim that counsel was ineffective for not attempting to rehabilitate Serrage's prejudicial views and for not seeking to remove him from the panel, which resulted in a biased juror serving on the jury”
Establishes the court's basis for reversing on ground six—that the lower court failed to conclusively rebut the ineffective assistance claim regarding the biased juror.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMuniz was convicted at trial where juror Brian Serrage expressed bias on the record, stating that police officer testimony was more reliable than othe…
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 Timeliness Of Postconviction Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
Julio Muniz appeals the order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Muniz raised multiple claims in his rule 3.850 motion and supplemental motions. We reverse the order denying relief as to two of the grounds, but affirm the summary denial as to all other grounds.
In ground six, Muniz alleged that counsel was ineffective during voir dire for failing to challenge juror Brian Serrage for cause, where Serrage expressed his bias on the record and counsel failed to ensure that Serrage could lay aside that bias to render his verdict solely on the evidence at trial and the court’s instructions. Serrage indicated that a police officer’s testimony was more reliable than that of other witnesses and that the defense would have to prove that a police officer’s testimony was unreliable. Although the standard of review as to a juror’s fitness is more restrictive in a rule 3.850 proceeding than on direct appeal, see Carratelli v. State, 961 *1142So.2d 312 (Fla.2007),1 the circuit court’s attachments to the order denying relief did not conclusively refute Muniz’s claim that counsel was ineffective for not attempting to rehabilitate Serrage’s prejudicial views and for not seeking to remove him from the panel, which resulted in a biased juror serving on the jury. We, therefore, reverse the denial of relief as to ground six and remand to the circuit court for further consideration of this ground.
In ground twelve, Muniz asserted that counsel was ineffective for not providing an interpreter before and during trial. The circuit court denied this claim as untimely filed. The mandate in Muniz’s direct appeal issued on October 6, 2006. Muniz, therefore, had until October 6, 2008, to raise his postconviction claim in a timely manner. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). The supplement containing ground twelve was served on August 19, 2008, and filed in the trial court on August 25, 2008. If new grounds are raised in a supplement to a rule 3.850 motion that is filed within the rule’s two-year limitation period and before the trial court has issued a final order, the new grounds are not untimely or successive. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509 (Fla.1999), receded from on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 (Fla.2004). We reverse the denial of relief as to ground twelve and remand to the circuit court for consideration of this ground on the merits.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
SAWAYA, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pope v. Sec'y FOR the Dep't OF Corr., 680 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2012)
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004)
- Carratelli v. State, 961 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2007)
- Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1999)