JAVIER LANDRON
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 rule 3.850 claim alleging ineffective assistance for failure to file a suppression motion challenging warrantless blood draws is cognizable and cannot be summarily denied without record evidence conclusively refuting the claim or an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to file a pretrial motion to suppress is cognizable and not refuted by the record if the mot…
[2] When assessing prejudice in a no contest plea context for ineffective assistance of counsel claims, courts must consider whether a particular defense was likely to succee…
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“Such circumstances include whether a particular defense was likely to succeed at trial, the plea colloquy between the appellant and the trial court, and the sentence imposed under the plea compared to the maximum possible sentence which appellant would have faced at trial.”
Court explaining the factors to consider under Grosvenor for no-contest pleas to determine if there is reasonable probability defendant would have insisted on trial but for counsel's error
Landron pleaded no contest to DUI manslaughter and DUI property damage. He filed a rule 3.850 motion alleging trial counsel failed to file a pretrial …
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 No Contest Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
JAVIER LANDRON,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D22-1942
[April 5, 2023]
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Thomas Michael Lynch V, Judge; L.T. Case No. 16-006002 CF10A.
Robert David Malove of The Law Office of Robert David Malove, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Javier Landron, appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, filed after he pled no contest to DUI manslaughter and DUI property damage. We reverse and remand for either attachment of record documents conclusively refuting the claim or for an evidentiary hearing.
Within his timely filed rule 3.850 motion, appellant alleged that trial counsel failed to file a pretrial motion to suppress to challenge warrantless hospital blood draws or advise appellant that suppressing the blood evidence was a viable “defense.” Appellant alleges the motion would have been meritorious because he did not consent to the blood draws, and if filed, he would have proceeded to trial.
Appellant’s claim is cognizable and not refuted by the record furnished. See Guevara v. State, 227 So. 3d 205, 207 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 440, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We note that the state’s responses focused on other admissible evidence of appellant’s impairment
2
to refute any claim of prejudice. However, because appellant pleaded no contest, Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985), and Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1181-82 (Fla. 2004), require consideration of other factors to determine whether a reasonable probability exists that appellant would have insisted on going to trial. Such circumstances include whether a particular defense was likely to succeed at trial, the plea colloquy between the appellant and the trial court, and the sentence imposed under the plea compared to the maximum possible sentence which appellant would have faced at trial. Grosvenor, 874 So. 2d at 1181-82.
On remand, the trial court is to determine if trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file a meritorious motion to suppress. If so, the trial court must next determine whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, appellant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.
Reversed and remanded. CIKLIN, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985)
- Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2004)
- Perez v. State, 967 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Guevara v. State, 227 So. 3d 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)