LAVELLE ANTONIO COPELAND, 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.
Copeland challenged the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed denial of some grounds as facially insufficient and unremedial, but reversed and remanded others because the deficiencies could be cured by amendment.
Grounds 2, 4, 7, and 8 were facially insufficient but could be cured by good faith amendment, requiring reversal and remand for the trial court to permit amendment. Grounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 were facially insufficient and could not be amended, so their denial was affirmed.
[1] A defendant seeking postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel after a guilty plea must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's…
[2] A motion to suppress is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.
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“in order to satisfy the 'prejudice' requirement [of Strickland], the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.”
Establishes the standard for proving prejudice in ineffective assistance claims when a defendant pleaded guilty
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCopeland, who entered a guilty plea, filed a postconviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 raising eleven grounds for ineffecti…
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 Postconviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
*416We find claims 2,. 4, 7, and 8 were facially- insufficient because where a defendant such as appellant entered a guilty plea, “in order to satisfy the ‘prejudice’ requirement [of Strickland], the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” State v. Dickey, 928 So.2d 1193, 1197 (Fla. 2006). Ground 2 was also facially insufficient because it alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a "motion to suppress” in order to argue a lack of sufficient evidence. The postconviction court correctly found the claim was facially insufficient because a motion to suppress would not have been the correct vehicle to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Ground 8 was also facially insufficient because appellant' failed to sufficiently allege facts demonstrating prejudice. See Nelson v. State, 977 So.2d 710, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
However, because these deficiencies could be cured by a good faith amendment, appellant was entitled to amend this claim pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 759 (Fla. 2007). Thus, we reverse the denial of ground 2, 4, 7, and 8, and we remand for the trial court to grant appellant leave to amend those grounds within a reasonable period of time. See- Griggs v. State, 995 So.2d 994, 995 (Fla. 1st.DCA 2008).
We affirm the denial of grounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 because these grounds were facially insufficient and cannot be amended pursuant to Spera.
' AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.
WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007)
- State v. Dickey, 928 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 2006)
- Nelson v. State, 977 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Griggs v. State, 995 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)