JOSE JARAMILLO, 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.
Jose Jaramillo appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reverses and remands portions of the motion because the postconviction court failed to address certain claims with sufficient record support, while affirming denial of the remaining grounds.
The court reversed and remanded regarding portions of grounds one and seven and all of ground eight because the postconviction court's summary denial was not conclusively refuted by the record. The court affirmed the denial of the remaining grounds without discussion.
[1] A postconviction court must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to challenge a juror for cause requires review of the entire voir dire transcript if the record do…
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“Because the record fails to conclusively refute ground eight and portions of grounds one and seven of the motion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
The court's holding that certain claims require further proceedings because they are not conclusively refuted by the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJaramillo was convicted by jury in 2004 of trafficking in cocaine (more than 400 grams but less than 150 kilograms) and sentenced to fifteen years in …
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 Entrapment Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Jose Jaramillo appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief wherein he raised thirteen grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.1 Because the record fails to conclusively refute ground eight and portions of grounds one and seven of the motion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the denial of the remaining grounds of Jaramillo’s motion without discussion.
In ground one of his motion, Jar-amillo alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge three jurors, Juror Lo, Juror Rodriguez, and Juror Collins, for cause. The postconviction court summarily denied this claim and attached portions of the voir dire transcript that conclusively refuted Jaramillo’s arguments as to Juror Lo and Juror Collins. However, the attached voir dire transcript does not support the postconviction court’s determination as to Juror Rodriguez.
In ground seven of his motion, Jar-amillo alleged that his counsel was ineffective for presenting an opening statement and a closing argument that conflicted with his entrapment defense. When the postconviction court summarily denied this claim, it cited to, and attached portions of, the closing argument, finding Jaramillo *643was not entitled to relief because his counsel clearly explained to the jury how he was entrapped. However, the postconviction court did not address or attach any records refuting Jaramillo’s claim as to the opening statement.
In ground eight of his motion, Jar-amillo contended that his counsel was ineffective for improperly introducing evidence of his prior arrests and convictions during the opening statement and throughout the trial. The postconviction court determined that Jaramillo was referring to “his time in Monroe County jail” and his counsel’s line of questioning during the cross-examination of a detective concerning similar drug-related offenses allegedly committed by Jaramillo. Yet when the postconviction court summarily denied his claim, it did not consider Jaramillo’s argument as to the opening statement.
We find the postconviction court’s determination on each of these claims is not conclusively refuted by the record. See Peede v. State, 748 So.2d 253, 257 (Fla.1999). Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings on portions of grounds one and seven and ground eight of Jaram-illo’s motion. On remand, the postconviction court shall either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting each of these claims or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and VILLANTI, J., Concur.