JEREMY HICKS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court abuses its discretion in summarily denying a postconviction motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to move to suppress Miranda-violating statements when the plea record does not conclusively refute the claim.
[1] A postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress statements obtained in violation of Miranda rights requires an…
[2] A trial court's order denying a postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing must be reversed if the record attachments do not conclusively show that the movant i…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Appellant's entry of a plea, plea colloquy, and other record attachments do not conclusively refute his first claim that his counsel failed to investigate evidence that would have supported a motion to suppress incriminating statements he gave to police while in custody without being informed of his Miranda rights, and that his counsel should have filed a motion to suppress.”
Quoted from Wilson v. State, 871 So. 2d 298, 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), establishing the standard for reviewing postconviction claims following a guilty plea.
Jeremy Hicks entered a negotiated guilty plea to three counts of lewd or lascivious battery on a child and was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment.…
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 Suppression Of Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this claim. Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). See Wilson v. State, 871 So. 2d 298, 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“Appellant’s entry of a plea, plea colloquy, and other record attachments do not conclusively refute his first claim that his counsel failed to investigate evidence that would have supported a motion to suppress incriminating statements he gave to police while in custody without being informed of his Miranda rights, and that his counsel should have filed a motion to suppress.”). We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of Hicks’ three other claims.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WETHERELL, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Jeremy Hicks, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael McDermott, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Wilson v. State, 871 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)