TAVARES CLARK, 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 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress a confession was legally sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record.
Appellant sought postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a motion to suppress his confession. The trial …
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Tavares Clark appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without comment as to claims one, three, and four of Mr. Clark’s motion and reverse as to claim two.
In claim two, Mr. Clark alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress his confession, which was obtained in violation of his Miranda 1 rights. The trial court denied the claim, concluding it had been raised on direct appeal, and attached the statement of judicial acts to be reviewed to support this conclusion. However, the trial court’s reliance on the statement of judicial acts to be reviewed to document the actual issues raised on appeal was inadequate. Stephens v. State, 738 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Moreover, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failure to file a motion to suppress is not the type of issue that normally can be raised and reviewed on direct appeal. Corzo v. State, 806 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Mr. Clark stated a legally sufficient claim for relief, which was not conclusively refuted by the record. Savage v. State, 832 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order on this claim. On remand, the trial court shall either attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Mr. Clark’s counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress. Rodriguez v. State, 892 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, 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
-
McNAIR v. State, 920 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ellant’s habitual sentences are illegal. The trial court improperly denied appellant’s motion as successive as the record does not conclusively refute appellant’s claim. See Griffis v. State, 819 So. 2d 253, 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Clark v. State, 898 So. 2d 1008, 1008-09 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We, therefore, reverse the summary denial of appellant’s claim that his habitual sentence is illegal and remand for the attachment of record portions conclusively refuting his claim or resentencing. On remand, if resente…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Corzo v. State, 806 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Savage v. State, 832 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Rodriguez v. State, 892 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Perdreaux v. State, 738 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)