DIEUROLD LOUIS, 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.
Court reversed summary denial of ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on failure to argue defective Miranda warnings, finding the claim legally sufficient under Strickland and remanding for evidentiary hearing or record development.
A claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to argue defective Miranda warnings in a motion to suppress is legally sufficient under Strickland v. Washington and cannot be summarily denied without adequate refutation by the record.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to raise defective Miranda warnings in a motion to suppress states a legally sufficient claim under Strickland v. …
Previewing 1 of 1 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 Louis was convicted after trial and filed a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming ineffective assi…
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.
Appellant Dieurold Louis appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion the trial court’s summary denial of claims two through five of the motion, and reverse the trial court’s summary denial of claim one. In claim one, appellant alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to argue in his motion to suppress that defective warnings under Miranda
were given. In particular, appellant argued that he was not advised of the right 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 of denial.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand either for the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting this claim or for an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
WARNER, POLEN 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
-
Corey v. State, 18 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…t’s other claims to be without merit. We thus reverse and remand for the trial court to either attach additional portions of the record conclusively refuting claims two and three or hold an evidentia-ry hearing on those claims. See Louis v. State, 948 So. 2d 869, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). GROSS, C.J., POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Willoghby Hall v. State, 972 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…la.2005). Appellant’s claim is legally sufficient, and the trial court failed to attach records that conclusively refute his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Burgess v. State, 965 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Louis v. State, 948 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Anthony v. State, 927 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding appellant’s claim [*265] trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress on the basis th…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Anthony v. State, 927 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Lukens Martelus v. State, 924 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)