TODD HANNIGAN, 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 a defendant must be given an opportunity to amend a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to shackling, unless the defect is uncorrectable.
Todd Hannigan appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, specifically claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for not obj…
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 Pleading Deficiencies cases and more on FLexlaw
Todd Hannigan appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of Hannigan’s motion, except as to claim one.
In his first claim, Hannigan asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s requirement that Hannigan be placed in leg shackles throughout the trial. Quoting Jones v. *212 State, 998 So.2d 573, 588 (Fla.2008), the trial court found this claim to be meritless because “[ajbsent allegations that the actual jurors were exposed to [Hannigan] in shackles, he cannot demonstrate prejudice.”
A defendant who has filed a legally insufficient rule 3.850 motion must be given at least one opportunity to correct the deficiency, unless it is apparent that the defect cannot be corrected. Luckey v. State, 979 So.2d 353, 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007)); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f). Although Hannigan alleged in his postconviction motion that shackling is inherently prejudicial and that his counsel should have objected and required that the court hold a hearing before shackling Hannigan, he did not allege in his motion that the jurors were exposed to him in shackles. Because this pleading deficiency in claim one may be correctable, we reverse the summary denial and remand with directions that the trial court provide Hanni-gan sixty days to amend claim one of his motion, if, in good faith, he can do so.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- Jones v. State, 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008)
- Luckey v. State, 979 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)