ANTHONIQUE PAMPHILE, 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.
Anthonique Pamphile appealed the denial of postconviction relief motions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that the trial court erred in summarily denying his claim that trial counsel failed to object to prosecutorial misstatements during closing argument regarding who possessed the firearm and whether Pamphile confessed.
The trial court erred in summarily denying ground three of Pamphile's rule 3.850 motion because the attached trial transcript excerpts do not conclusively refute his claim of ineffective assistance but instead tend to support it. The trial court must either attach records that conclusively refute the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A postconviction court must hold an evidentiary hearing or attach records that conclusively refute a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
[2] Misstatements of fact during closing argument are objectionable.
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“Misstatements of fact during closing argument are objectionable. See Skanes v. State, 821 So.2d 1102, 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ('[T]he misstatement of testimony during closing argument may prove to be reversible error.'”
Establishes that prosecutorial misstatements of fact are cognizable grounds for relief
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePamphile was convicted by jury of robbery with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, and third-degree grand theft. During closing argument, th…
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 Prejudice Prong Of Ineffective Assistance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
Anthonique Pamphile appeals the denial of two motions for postconviction relief. We conclude that the trial court erred in summarily denying ground three of Pam-*1271phile’s rule 3.850 motion, but otherwise affirm.
Following a jury trial, Pamphile was convicted of robbery with a firearm, aggra vated assault with a firearm, and third-degree grand theft. This court affirmed his convictions and sentences. Pamphile v. State, 113 So.3d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
In ground three of his rule 3,850 motion, Pamphile alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to improper prosecutorial comments made during closing argument. Specifically, he alleged that the prosecutor misstated. facts regarding which perpetrator had a gun during the robbery and further misled the jury to believe that he had confessed to the crime, which he had not. Pamphile attacks the relevant portion of the closing argument, in which the prosecutor argued:
Nobody, other than Mr. Pamphile, has ever said that anyone other than him had the gun ... [the victim] said Mr. Pamphile had the gun .... [T]he gun was found on the rear floorboard where Mr. Pamphile was sitting.
Pamphile further alleged that he suffered prejudice as a result because the jury relied on the improper comments in rendering its verdict.
Ground three of Pamphile’s rule 3.850 motion was facially sufficient. Misstatements of fact during closing argument are objectionable. See Skanes v. State, 821 So.2d 1102, 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“[T]he misstatement of testimony during closing argument may prove to be reversible error.” (citing State v. Cutler, 785 So.2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001))).
In summarily denying ground three, the postconviction court concluded that Pamphile had shown neither deficient performance nor prejudice, attaching transcript excerpts of witness testimony from the trial.. However, those excerpts do not conclusively refute Pamphile’s claim—indeed, they tend to support the claim. First, the attachments do not reflect that Pam-phile made a statement admitting to his presence at the robbery, Second, the excerpts include testimony from the victim that a co-defendant, not Pamphile, was.in possession of the firearm. Third, the excerpts include testimony that the gun was found on the rear floorboard where the co-defendant, not Pamphile, was sitting. On remand, the trial court shall either attach records that .conclusively, refute ground three of Pamphile’s motion or hold an evi-dentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED,' in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
PALMER, EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cutler, 785 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Skanes v. State, 821 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Decius Gene Jules v. State, 113 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- Anthonique Pamphile v. State, 113 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)