BRUNO ANDRE, 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 defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the failure to sever charges, as the record did not conclusively refute prejudice.
Defendant was convicted of multiple offenses, including luring a child and lewd molestation. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief, raising eig…
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
Defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including luring or enticing a child under the age of twelve (count 1) and lewd or lascivious molestation on a victim under 12 (count 5). A jury found defendant guilty as charged on all offenses and the court convicted and sentenced him.1 Defendant filed a rule 3.850 motion raising eight claims, all of which were summarily denied. Except as to claim 7, we affirm the denial of defendant’s claims upon the finding that Defendant did not satisfy his burden under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to claim 7, however, we find that defendant was entitled to an evi-dentiary hearing, as the record did not refute the prejudice prong under Strickland.
In claim 7, defendant argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to sever the charges for lewd and lascivious molestation (count 5) and luring or enticing a child (count 1). He claimed that by consolidating the charges, the jury was confronted with his criminal history and prior conviction for a sexual offense, which were admitted to prove count 1.
We reverse on this issue and remand for an evidentiary hearing, as the state’s arguments do not conclusively demonstrate that defendant was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to move to sever counts 1 and 5.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing consistent with this opinion.
WARNER, TAYLOR and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Bruno Andre v. State, 13 So. 3d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)