GREGORY EVERETT, 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.
Gregory Everett appealed the denial of his postconviction motion alleging jury misconduct based on an alleged improper hallway conference between the prosecutor, victim, and jurors during trial. The court reversed and remanded, finding the trial court improperly summarily denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing when the issue involved facts not available on direct appeal.
The court held that the postconviction motion could not be summarily denied on the grounds used by the trial court because the allegations involved facts that could not have been raised on direct appeal due to the lack of a court record. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the jury misconduct claim.
[1] A claim of juror misconduct involving improper contact with a prosecutor, victim, or victim's family during a trial recess may not be summarily denied in postconviction p…
[2] Allegations that the trial court failed to record or address a matter brought to its attention by trial counsel may indicate that the issue could not have been raised on…
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“Everett alleged under oath that he was deprived of due process when the trial judge failed to dismiss the jury for misconduct after the prosecutor, the victim, and the victim's mother "held a conference" with jurors in a courthouse corridor during a recess.”
Establishes the core allegation of jury misconduct that forms the basis of the postconviction motion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial, the prosecutor, victim, and victim's mother allegedly held a conference with jurors in a courthouse corridor during a recess. Everett's …
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 Strickland Prejudice Prong cases and more on FLexlaw
Gregory Everett appeals the order denying his timely motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which raised four grounds for relief. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on ground two only.
Everett alleged under oath that he was deprived of due process when the trial judge failed to dismiss the jury for misconduct after the prosecutor, the victim, and the victim’s mother “held a conference” with jurors in a courthouse corridor during a recess. Everett further claimed that his trial attorney brought this matter to the judge’s attention in open court but that the judge failed to inquire about the substance of the hallway discussion.
Attached to Everett’s motion was his trial counsel’s affidavit, which supported the contention that the attorney had alerted the trial judge about the potentially improper conversation between one or more jurors and the victim but that portion of the proceedings was not recorded. In response, the State conceded the need for a hearing to resolve issues relating to possible witness contact with the jurors during trial. The postconviction court then ordered an evidentiary hearing on this matter. However, before the hearing was held, a successor judge sua sponte denied the motion on the merits, finding that Everett was not entitled to an eviden-tiary hearing because claims of trial court error must be raised on appeal rather than in a rule 3.850 motion.
Nothing attached to the order on appeal demonstrates that the issue Everett raised in his postconviction motion could have *359been raised on direct appeal. Indeed, the allegations appear to be that the trial judge and trial counsel failed to have the court reporting system in place or operating when the matter was addressed to the judge.1 If that is the case, given that trial counsel was not the appellate counsel, there would have been little or no ability for appellate counsel to even appreciate that the issue existed.-
We conclude that this motion could not be summarily denied on the grounds relied upon by the postconviction court. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. We would note that the State, while conceding that an evidentiary hearing was necessary, did not concede that the motion was facially sufficient to establish the prejudice prong of Strickland. 2 See Thompson v. State, 990 So.2d 482, 490-91 (Fla.2008) (requiring a showing that the result of the proceeding was rendered unreliable, and confidence in the outcome undermined by counsel’s deficiency). On remand, the postconviction, court is authorized to allow Everett to amend his motion to allege prejudice in greater detail. However, given that the motion was filed in 2002 and it alleges a due process violation, the postcoriviction court may find that it is more expedient at this time to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the facts surrounding the alleged hallway conference.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded. ■
ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT, and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Thompson v. State, 990 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2008)