TAURIC 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.
Tauric Griggs appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion challenging his conviction for first-degree murder and armed robbery. The appellate court found three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and sentencing error warranted reversal and remand for evidentiary hearing, while affirming the trial court's denial of other claims.
The court reversed and remanded on three issues: (1) the voluntary intoxication defense claim was facially sufficient and required an evidentiary hearing because the trial court improperly found strategic decision without hearing; (2) the attempted robbery instruction claim was sufficient and the record did not conclusively refute it; (3) the sentencing order was improper because Florida Statutes § 775.084(4)(b) does not provide for a mandatory minimum life sentence for first-degree felony armed robbery.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is facially sufficient when counsel allegedly failed to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense for specific intent crimes wh…
[2] A trial court errs by finding, without an evidentiary hearing, that counsel made a strategic decision when the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rega…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 claim that counsel failed to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense when he was aware Appellant was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the offenses is facially sufficient.”
Establishes that the voluntary intoxication defense claim met the threshold for postconviction relief consideration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGriggs was charged with and convicted of first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm. At trial, he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at …
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 First Degree Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tauric Griggs, Appellant, challenges the denial of his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as claims of sentencing error. Only three of his claims warrant reversal.
Appellant’s claim that counsel failed to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense when he was aware Appellant was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the offenses is facially sufficient. See Kitchen v. State, 764 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Appellant stood trial before the legislature did away with the voluntary intoxication defense. Additionally, he was charged with first-degree murder and robbery with a firearm, both of which are specific intent crimes. Thus, the defense was available to Appellant. See Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla.1985). The trial court’s finding, without an evidentiary hearing, that counsel made a strategic decision to use the alibi defense, was inappropriate. See Griggs v. State, 744 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for evidentiary hearing with regards to this claim.
Appellant also alleged that counsel was ineffective in failing to request an attempted robbery instruction. He argued he was prejudiced because the jury asked a question which indicated it was considering an attempted robbery conviction. As the claim is sufficient, see Oehling v. State, 659 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), and the record attachments do not conclusively refute this claim, we reverse and remand for evidentiary hearing.
Finally, Appellant claimed that his written sentencing order, which imposes a mandatory minimum life sentence for armed robbery, doesn’t comport with the oral pronouncement. This is a cognizable rule 3.850 claim. See Williams v. State, 789 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We accept the State’s concession of error, as section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), doesn’t provide for a mandatory minimum sentence of life for a first degree felony.
If the trial court denies the ineffective assistance claims after evidentiary hearing, the court shall resentence Appellant in accordance with section 775.084(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1997). We affirm in all other respects.
FARMER, HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
English v. State, 830 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…was the sole witness at trial) were sufficient allegations of prejudice. As there was no evidentiary hearing in this case, it is improper to affirm the denial of relief based on a finding that counsel made a strategic decision. See Griggs v. State, 821 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for record attachments or an evidentiary hearing.1 STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. . The State attached exhibits to its response below that purportedly refuted the claim. The…
Authorities Cited
- Linehan v. State, 476 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 1985)
- Oehling v. State, 659 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Kitchen v. State, 764 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Tauric Lamar Griggs v. State, 744 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Williams v. State, 789 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)