COREY REYNOLDS, 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 reversed the summary denial of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the trial court failed to adequately address whether counsel's failure to pursue an involuntary intoxication defense was a reasonable tactical decision or resulted from a mistaken belief that the defense was unavailable.
A trial court may not summarily deny a Rule 3.850 ineffective assistance of counsel motion based on counsel's tactical decision without establishing from the record that the decision was clearly tactical and within counsel's discretion, particularly when the defendant alleges counsel operated under a mistaken legal belief.
[1] A trial court may not summarily deny a Rule 3.850 ineffective assistance of counsel motion based on counsel's tactical decision unless the record clearly establishes that…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Counsel made a reasonable strategic decision to present a theory of defense based on the accidental discharge of a firearm.”
Trial court's reasoning for summarily denying the Rule 3.850 motion.
Corey Reynolds appealed the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue an involuntary in…
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 Involuntary Intoxication Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Corey Reynolds, appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of *221Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant alleges that his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue an involuntary intoxication defense, and that counsel incorrectly believed that an involuntary intoxication defense was unavailable to Appellant. In summarily denying the motion, the trial court reasoned that “[c]ounsel made a reasonable strategic decision to present a theory of defense based on the accidental discharge of a firearm.”
Generally, a trial court may not summarily deny a rule 3.850 motion on the ground that trial counsel made a reasonable tactical decision, unless “it is so obvious from the face of the record that trial counsel’s strategy not to present a voluntary intoxication defense is very clearly a tactical decision well within the discretion of counsel.” Hannon v. State, 941 So.2d 1109, 1138 (Fla. 2006). Based on this record alone, however, we cannot conclude that “it is so obvious ... that trial counsel’s strategy ... is very clearly a tactical decision well within the discretion of counsel.” Id. This is especially so given Appellant’s allegation that counsel was operating under the mistaken assumption that an involuntary intoxication defense was unavailable to Appellant. We therefore reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED for Ev-identiary Hearing.
EVANDER, WALLIS, and EISNAUGLE JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adnell Rafael Reyes v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
-
Janepsy Carballo v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
Janepsy Carballo v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hannon v. State, 941 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 2006)