LUKENS MARTELUS, 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.
Lukens Martelus appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress his confession obtained after defective Miranda warnings that did not advise him of the right to counsel during questioning. The court found a reasonable probability the confession was crucial to conviction and reversed for further proceedings.
The court held that Martelus established a reasonable probability that but for the erroneous admission of his confession, the result of the proceedings would have been different, satisfying the ineffective assistance of counsel standard under Strickland v. Washington.
[1] A confession obtained after defective Miranda warnings, which fail to advise a suspect of the right to counsel during questioning, may be subject to suppression.
[2] To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate that counsel's performance was both deficient and prejudicial.
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“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial.”
Establishes the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartelus was convicted in 2001 of armed robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His confession followed Miranda warnings tha…
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 Right To Counsel During Questioning cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lukens Martelus appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for failure to move for suppression of his confession statement made to police after he was given defective Miranda1 warnings.
Martelus was convicted of armed robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 35 years in prison in 2001. In this timely motion for post-conviction relief, he argued that his confession followed a Miranda warning which failed to advise him of the right to counsel during questioning, and that trial counsel rendered a deficient performance in failing to move to suppress his statement on that ground. He cited Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225, 1228-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), rev. denied sub. nom., State v. West, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2005) (holding that suspects must be informed of their right to have an attorney present before and during questioning). This decision did not change the law, but rather it applied the very pronouncements of Miranda itself.
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial. Deficient performance is that which falls below an objective standard of reasonableness considering the circumstances, and the test for prejudice calls for a determination of whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficiency, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
While the victim of the robbery did identify the defendant as one of the two robbers, the record attachments to the State’s response filed in the trial court, showed that he had also previously made a photo lineup identification of defendant based on: black and white photos of African American males not wearing caps, that the robbers both wore caps, that the victim admitted to being normally tired after working 11 to 12 hours as he had before this robbery occurred, and that the detective performing the photo lineup made some sort of recording error on the victim’s identification procedure. We find on this record that defendant has pleaded a reasonable probability that but for the erroneous admission of appellant’s confession to the robbery, the result of the proceedings would have been different. We therefore reverse and remand , to the trial court for record attachments refuting this claim if available, or an evidentiary hearing.
WARNER, FARMER and KLEIN, 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
-
Anthony v. State, 927 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…As we have held before in similar cases, this claim is legally sufficient. Accordingly, we reverse and remand either for the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting this claim or for an evi-dentiary hearing. See Martelus v. State, 924 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Coney v. State, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D591, — So. 2d -, 2006 WL 398431 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 22, 2006); Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Affirmed in part; Reversed in part and Remanded. GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., con…
-
Dieurold Louis v. State, 948 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…t to counsel during questioning. We find that this claim was legally sufficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See, e.g., Anthony v. State, 927 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Martelus v. State, 924 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Appellant’s claim on this ground was not adequately refuted either by the State’s response or record attachments to its response which were adopted by the trial court’s order…
-
Burgess v. State, 965 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ineffective assistance of counsel which have been sufficiently plead. As such, this matter must be reversed and remanded for further attachment or an evidentiary hearing. See Anthony, v. State, 927 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Martelus v. State, 924 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (allegations that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move for suppression of a statement made after [*1240] defective Miranda warnings are legally sufficient). SHAH…
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
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Gorman Roberts, Jr. v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- State v. West, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 2005)