SHEDRICK JENRETTE, 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.
Shedrick Jenrette appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief challenging his guilty plea to lewd and lascivious conduct on a child and his subsequent plea to violation of community control. The appellate court finds merit in his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion to suppress an allegedly Miranda-violative confession and reverses on that issue while affirming the denial of his other claims.
The court held that Jenrette's claim of ineffective assistance is facially sufficient, that he did not waive the claim by pleading guilty, and that an attorney's failure to investigate or pursue a suppression defense resulting in an ill-advised guilty plea constitutes a sufficient attack on conviction warranting reversal and remand.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief is timely as to both an initial plea and a subsequent plea for violation of community control.
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on the failure to file a motion to suppress a confession made prior to Miranda warnings are facially sufficient.
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“a trial attorney's failure to investigate a factual defense or a defense relying on the suppression of evidence which results in an ill-advised plea of guilty has long been held to constitute a facially sufficient attack upon a conviction”
Establishes the legal standard for evaluating ineffective assistance claims based on failure to pursue suppression defense
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJenrette pleaded guilty to lewd and lascivious conduct on a child and received community control. He subsequently violated community control and was s…
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 Motion To Suppress Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Shedrick Jenrette appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Jenrette pleaded guilty to a lewd and lascivious act upon a child and was sentenced to community control. Shortly thereafter, he admitted violating his community control and was sentenced to prison. He now challenges both his initial plea to the underlying offense and his plea to the violation of community control. His motion is timely as to both.
We find merit in only one of Jenrette’s claims and reverse as to that one. Jen-rette alleges that counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to suppress his confession to the lewd and lascivious charge. Jenrette states that he advised counsel that his confession was made while he was in custody but before he had been advised of his Miranda1 rights, and that he would not have pleaded guilty to this charge if his counsel had filed a motion to suppress. Jenrette’s claim is facially sufficient. See Fortner v. State, 538 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Moreover, the trial court’s conclusion that Jenrette waived this claim by pleading guilty is incorrect. See Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1066, 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (noting that “a trial attorney’s failure to investigate a factual defense or a defense relying on the suppression of evidence which results in an ill-advised plea of guilty has long been held to constitute a facially sufficient attack upon a conviction”). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings as to this claim. We affirm the trial court’s order in all other respects without comment.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur. . Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 871 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…ant made to police officers. The record offers no indication that appellant’s attorney addressed this concern of appellant’s, or that appellant had been made aware of a potential suppression issue pri- or to entering his plea. See Jenrette v. State, 761 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the appellant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress a confession the appellant gave without being informed of his Miranda rights was facially sufficient). Therefore, we rev…
-
Cordes v. State, 842 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…. Cordes’ motion for postconviction relief. The trial court held that the issues were waived when Mr. Cordes entered his plea. Mr. Cordes did not waive his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel when he entered his plea. See Jenrette v. State, 761 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citing Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)). Moreover, Mr. Cordes established his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or pursue a defense of statute of limitations prior to advising Mr. Cordes to…
-
Wells v. State, 881 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ause Wells did challenge the voluntariness of his plea. He argued that, had counsel discussed the possibility of moving for discharge, he would have instructed his assistant public defender to do so rather than enter the plea. See Jenrette v. State, 761 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding defendant did not waive claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by pleading guilty, where he alleged he would not have pleaded guilty if his counsel had moved to suppress his confession; a trial attorney’s failure to i…
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
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Cintron v. State, 495 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Fortner v. State, 538 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)