TAURIC LAMAR GRIGGS, 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.
The court held that a trial court's finding of sound trial strategy is generally inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing when determining ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
[1] A trial court's finding that defense counsel's action or inaction was tactical is generally inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing.
[2] Summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief is improper if the motion alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication de…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to pursue a…
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 Misidentification Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tauric Lamar Griggs (appellant) appeals from an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and the order denying his motion for rehearing. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant was convicted of one count of robbery with a firearm, a specific intent crime, and was sentenced to life in prison with a fifteen year mandatory minimum as a habitual violent felony offender. The first ground of appellant’s rule 3.850 motion alleged the ineffectiveness of counsel for failing to pursue a defense of temporary insanity by reason of voluntary intoxication, or a voluntary intoxication defense, as appellant had told counsel of his long history of substance abuse and of the fact that he had smoked two marijuana cigarettes, three crack cocaine rocks and had drunk a 16-oz. can of malt liquor beer about twenty minutes before the crime and had been drinking and smoking the same all day long. Instead, counsel had pursued a misidentification defense, which appellant argued was unreasonable in light of the victim’s eyewitness identification, the victim’s testimony that he knew appellant as a previous regular customer, and the surveillance camera photos presented at trial. The trial court denied the motion, relying on the state’s response that the use of the misidentification defense instead of the voluntary intoxication defense was sound trial strategy under the circumstances.
We agree with appellant that “a trial court’s finding that some action or inaction by defense counsel was tactical is generally inappropriate without an eviden-. tiary hearing.” Guisasola v. State, 667 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 1st DCA1995) (reversing summary denial of claim that counsel was ineffective in investigation and presentation of voluntary intoxication defense).
We affirm as to appellant’s other two grounds, reverse as to the first ground, and remand for either an evidentiary hearing or the attachment of portions of the record which conclusively refute appellant’s claim.
WARNER, C.J., FARMER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donnie K. Sassnett v. State, 838 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…oxication defense. These allegations are sufficient to warrant further inquiry regarding counsel’s strategy on such issue. See Hester v. State, 732 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Harley v. State, 753 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Griggs v. State, 744 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Fourth, appellant claims ineffective assistance of counsel by not properly investigating and preparing the misidentifi-cation defense in that counsel failed to obtain a store surveillance videotape that was filmed before the bu…
-
Hamilton v. State, 860 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…ing trial strategy, when the court is confronted with a claim of ineffective assistance, a finding that some action or inaction by defense counsel was tactical is generally inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing. Id.; see also Griggs v. State, 744 So. 2d 1145, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Furthermore, in Ford v. State, 825 So. 2d 358 (Fla.2002), the Florida Supreme Court held that without an evi-dentiary hearing or any record attachments refuting a petitioner’s claim that his attorney failed to investigate…
-
Jacobson v. State, 171 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…e counsel must have made a tactical decision not to proceed with an insanity defense. Whether counsel’s action or inaction was based on a strategic or tactical decision is a determination ordinarily requiring an evidentiary hearing. Griggs v. State, 744 So. 2d 1145, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). If granted an evidentiary hearing on these grounds, Jacobson will have the burden of establishing his claims by coming forward with evidence to support the viability of the defenses. See Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 117…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Guisasola v. State, 667 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)