ROBERT C. MACKINNON, 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.
Robert C. MacKinnon appeals the denial of his postconviction relief motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming his attorney failed to timely file a valid motion to suppress methamphetamine evidence before trial, resulting in an ill-advised guilty plea. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reverses, finding that the uncontroverted evidence supported MacKinnon's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel.
MacKinnon is entitled to postconviction relief. A trial attorney's failure to investigate or pursue a suppression defense that has a valid basis and results in an ill-advised guilty plea constitutes a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance. The trial court's denial of the motion was erroneous.
[1] A facially sufficient attack upon a conviction exists when a trial attorney's failure to investigate a factual defense or a defense relying on the suppression of evidence…
[2] An allegation that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress is a legally sufficient claim that is not waived by the entry of…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 attorney's failure to investigate a factual defense or a defense relying on the suppression of evidence, which results in the entry of an ill-advised plea of guilty, has long been held to constitute a facially sufficient attack upon the conviction.”
Establishes the legal standard for ineffective assistance claims based on failure to file suppression motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMacKinnon pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine on the day of his scheduled trial. His trial counsel acknowledged that a valid basis existed…
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 Motion For Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert C. MacKinnon appeals from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Finding that MacKinnon is entitled to relief, we reverse.
After pleading guilty to the charge of possession of methamphetamine on the day of his scheduled trial, MacKinnon filed a motion for postconviction relief claiming that he was forced to enter an ill-advised plea of guilty after his attorney failed to timely file a motion to suppress the methamphetamine, despite having a valid basis for pursuing suppression of the drugs. At the evidentiary hearing on MacKinnon’s 3.850 motion, trial counsel confirmed that she believed a valid basis existed for suppressing the drugs, but explained that she had not had time to prepare the motion before the trial date. She further explained that even after the trial judge continued the trial for two days to afford time for filing the suppression motion, she was unable to draft the motion because she was in court on other cases.
“A trial attorney’s failure to investigate a factual defense or a defense relying on the suppression of evidence, which results in the entry of an ill-advised plea of guilty, has long been held to constitute a facially sufficient attack upon the conviction.” Williams v. State, 717 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); see also Spencer v. State, 889 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“An allegation that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress is a legally sufficient claim, which is not waived by entry of a plea.”).
Because the uncontroverted evidence at the hearing supported MacKinnon’s claim for relief, we are perplexed by the trial court’s unelaborated ruling that Mac-Kinnon’s counsel “did not omit anything that would be shown to be outside the broad range of reasonable assistance under prevailing professional standards.” MacKinnon’s motion should have been granted. We reverse the order on appeal, and remand with directions to grant Mac-*539Kinnon’s motion and set aside his plea, conviction and sentence.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Guzman-Aviles v. State, 226 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…o investigate a factual defense or a defense relying on the suppression of evidence, which results in the entry of an ill-advised plea of guilty, has long been held to constitute a facially sufficient attack upon the conviction.” MacKinnon v. State, 39 So. 3d 537, 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (quoting Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). In Hampton v. State, 217 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), this court recently held that a postconviction court erred in determining that a defendant’s no-conte…
-
Hampton v. State, 217 So. 3d 1096 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…ided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion to suppress is a legally sufficient claim, which is not waived by an entry of a plea.” Spencer v. State, 889 So. 2d 868, 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citations omitted); see also MacKinnon v. State, 39 So. 3d 537, 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Thus, the postconviction court erred when it relied on legal insufficiency in summarily denying Appellant’s first ground for relief. The record does not contain the motions to suppress or transcripts of the hearings resolvi…
-
FRY v. State, 217 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…o investigate a factual defense or a defense relying on the suppression of evidence, which results in the entry of an ill-advised plea of guilty, has long been held to constitute a facially sufficient attack upon the conviction.” MacKinnon v. State, 39 So. 3d 537, 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (quoting Williams % State, 717 So. 2d 1066,1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). See also Smith v. State, 815 So. 2d 707, 707-08 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding that the appellant’s claim was facially sufficient and not negated by his plea…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Spencer v. State, 889 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Dutertre v. State, 889 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)