DANIEL TULLOCH, 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 held that the defendant should be allowed to amend his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate a defense witness.
The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking and appealed the summary denial of his post-conviction motion. One claim alleged ineffective assistanc…
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 Miranda Warnings cases and more on FLexlaw
Daniel Tulloeh appeals the summary denial of an eleven point post-conviction motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850. We reverse the denial of one point so that the appellant may be afforded a reasonable amount of time in which to amend the claim under Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).
Following a jury trial, Tulloeh was convicted of Trafficking in Heroin (over 28, under 30 grams) in violation of section *1156893.035, Florida Statutes (2003). He was sentenced to twenty-seven years and six months imprisonment.
In Ground 7, Tulloch alleged that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate an available defense witness: Detective Taranu. He asserted that this officer would have contradicted the officer who testified at trial — Detective Land — where Detective Land stated that he read Tulloch his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The State argued that in order to succeed on an ineffectiveness claim for failing to call a particular witness, Tulloch must allege what testimony he would have elicited, that he was available to testify at the time of the hearing, and how he was prejudiced. See Spera, 971 So.2d at 756. It asserted that Tulloch did not meet all of the elements because he failed to identify the witness’s availability and how counsel’s failure to call the witness prejudiced the outcome of his case. The State concedes that Tulloch should be given a chance to amend his legally insufficient claim.
Because the trial court’s order does not refute Tulloeh’s claim, we remand for the trial court to allow him a reasonable amount of time in which to amend this ground. We affirm the remaining issues without comment.
Reversed in part; Affirmed in part; Remanded.
TAYLOR, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tulloch v. State, 145 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s amended claim seven following our remand in Tulloch v. State, 86 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The deposition transcripts conclusively refute appellant’s claim. Appellant has attempted to raise additional claims which exceed the scope of our remand. These claims are procedurally barred and were properly denied. Affirm…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)