CAY ADAM RIVERA
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 5th DCA | 2019-02-22
No. 18-2814
Toner, J., Wallis, J., Orfinger, J., Harris, J.
264 So. 3d 398 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2019)

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.

Holding

A trial court may not summarily deny a rule 3.850 motion based on trial strategy unless it is obvious from the face of the record that counsel's decision was a reasonable tactical choice.

Headnotes

[1] A trial court may not summarily deny a rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel based on trial strategy unless it is obvious from the face of the reco…

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
Key Quotes

“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.'”

Court's statement of the legal standard for summary denial of ineffective assistance claims based on trial strategy
Facts & Procedural History

Rivera was charged with crimes involving a safe containing illegal contraband that was accessible by key and keypad. Rivera possessed a key to the saf…

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.

Topics
Trial Strategy Evidentiary Hearing Requirement Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 Expert Testimony

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Trial Strategy cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Harris

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CAY ADAM RIVERA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D18-2814

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed February, 22, 2019

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Stephen E. Toner, Jr., Judge.

Cay Adam Rivera, Raiford, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

WALLIS, J.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although Appellant’s initial motion raised seven claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant is only appealing the trial court’s summary denial of claims (1), (5), and (6). We affirm the trial court’s denial of claim (1) without further discussion.

3

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED with Instructions.

ORFINGER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
2 The facts relevant to the remaining issues on this appeal concern Appellant’s ability to access a safe containing illegal contraband that was the subject of the charges brought to trial. The evidence established that the safe was accessible via a key and a keypad. Appellant was found in possession of a key to the safe. The State provided testimony that the safe’s keypad was not functioning properly at the time of the offense. In claim (5), Appellant alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not hire a safe expert to provide testimony that the keypad was functioning properly thereby allowing others to access the safe. In claim (6), Appellant argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to hire a private investigator to show that he did not reside in the residence and that other people had access to the safe. The trial court summarily denied both claims, finding that trial counsel’s decisions were based on trial strategy. Although the trial court cites trial strategy as justifying the summary denial, it is impossible to determine from the record and without an evidentiary hearing whether trial counsel’s decisions were reasonable trial strategy. Moreover, the records do not conclusively refute Appellant’s claims. Therefore, it was error for the trial court to summarily deny claims (5) and (6). See Reynolds v. State, 227 So. 3d 220, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("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.'" (quoting Hannon v. State, 941 So. 2d 1109, 1138 (Fla. 2006))). We, therefore, reverse and remand the summary denial of claims (5) and (6) for the trial court to either attach records conclusively refuting these claims, or to hold an evidentiary hearing. See Hannon, 941 So. 2d at 1138; Reynolds, 227 So. 3d at 221.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw