STEVE JEROD HOLDER, DOC #108004, 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.
Steve Jerod Holder appeals a postconviction order denying his Rule 3.850 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reverses and remands one claim regarding trial counsel's failure to object to an allegedly coercive Allen charge instruction, while affirming the denial of two other claims.
The court held that while Holder could not establish prejudice merely by asserting that counsel's omission affected appellate rights, his amended allegation that the coercive instruction 'spooked' jurors into convicting him to avoid prolonged deliberations constituted a sufficient allegation of prejudice to warrant reconsideration on the merits under Strickland v. Washington.
[1] A trial court errs by instructing a deliberating jury in a manner that coerces them into reaching a verdict.
[2] A trial court should not set forth coercive deadlines or make threats of marathon deliberations when giving an Allen charge.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“It is error for a trial court to instruct a deliberating jury in a manner so as to coerce them into reaching a verdict.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that coercive jury instructions violate constitutional protections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolder was convicted by jury in 2009 of sexual battery with a deadly weapon and false imprisonment. He filed a postconviction motion claiming trial co…
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 Coercive Jury Instructions cases and more on FLexlaw
Steve Jerod Holder seeks review of the order denying his motion for postconviction relief which was filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Holder was found guilty of sexual battery with a *519deadly weapon and false imprisonment in 2009 after a jury trial. Holder argues that the postconviction court erred in summarily denying claim three of his motion for failure to effectively allege prejudice. We agree and reverse and remand for reconsideration of this facially sufficient claim. Holder also argues that the court erred in denying claims one and two after an evi-dentiary hearing. Finding no error, we affirm the denial of these claims without further comment.
In claim three, Holder asserted that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the Allen1 Charge the trial court gave to the deadlocked jury. Holder alleged that the court told the jurors that they had to stay as long as it took to reach a verdict and could not go home until they did so. In his original rule 3.850 motion, Holder alleged he was prejudiced by the omission because an objection would have preserved the issue for appellate review. After affording Holder an opportunity to amend, the postconviction court again concluded that he failed'to effectively allege prejudice and denied the claim. -
It is error for a trial court to instruct a deliberating jury in a manner so as to coerce them into reaching a verdict. Thomas v. State, 748 So.2d 970, 976 (Fla. 1999). The court should not set forth “coercive deadlines” and make “threats of marathon deliberations” when giving an Allen charge. Monforto v. State, 28 So.3d 65, 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Young v. State, 711 So.2d 1379, 1379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)), And counsel’s failure to object to such an instruction can .constitute ineffective assistance. See Bruno v. State, 807 So.2d 55, 66 (Fla. 2001).
The postconviction court correctly determined that Holder could not establish prejudice by asserting that counsel’s omission affected his appellate rights. See Bradley v. State, 33 So.3d 664, 683 n.20 (Fla. 2010). However, Holder amended his claim to also allege, “Such threats- spooked the individual juriors [sic] into convicting the defendant to avoid such fate [deliberating all night].” We conclude this is a sufficient allegation of prejudice. See id. at 672 (“Prejudice is met only if there is a reasonable probability that ‘but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984))). We therefore reverse and remand for reconsideration of this claim on the merits.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. ■ ■
LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Macias v. State, 284 So. 3d 467 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…e court's determination that the claim fails to present a valid basis for relief is incorrect. Macias alleged both the deficiency—the failure to object to irrelevant and prejudicial evidence—and how he was prejudiced thereby. See Holder v. State, 233 So. 3d 518, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). The postconviction court did not consider the admissibility of the evidence or whether the State's alleged emphasis of the victim's age became a focus of the trial, prejudicing Macias. And it failed to attach transcript ex…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896)
- Thomas v. State, 748 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 1999)
- Bruno v. State, 807 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 2001)
- Bradley v. State, 33 So. 3d 664 (Fla. 2010)
- Am. Rd. Mach. Co. v. Pennock & Sharp Co., 164 U.S. 26 (U.S. 1896)
- Young v. State, 711 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Monforto v. State, 28 So. 3d 65 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)