WILLOGHBY HALL, 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 Rule 3.850 ineffective assistance claim where trial counsel failed to argue defective Miranda warnings in motion to suppress.
Trial counsel's failure to argue defective Miranda warnings in a motion to suppress states a legally sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel requiring an evidentiary hearing or record attachment.
[1] Trial counsel's failure to raise defective Miranda warnings in a motion to suppress constitutes a legally sufficient claim for ineffective assistance of counsel requiring…
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 intelligence“Appellant's claim is legally sufficient, and the trial court failed to attach records that conclusively refute his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.”
Court's explanation for reversing summary denial and requiring evidentiary hearing or record attachment
Hall was given Miranda warnings that omitted advisement of the right to have a lawyer present during questioning, similar to those in Roberts v. State…
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.
Willoghby Hall appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. We affirm the denial of appellant’s first claim without discussion, and reverse the trial court’s summary denial of appellant’s second claim.
In his second claim appellant argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue in a motion to suppress that defective Miranda
warnings were given. Appellant specifically alleged that he was not advised that he had the right to have a lawyer present during questioning. The warnings given to appellant appear to be the same as those given in Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), rev. denied sub. nom., State v. West, 892 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.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 trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress on the basis that the Miranda warnings were deficient under Roberts to be legally sufficient).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand either for the attachment of portions of the record that conclusively refute this claim or for an evidentiary hearing.
STONE, POLEN and TAYLOR, 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
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- Stancle v. State, 917 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Anthony v. State, 927 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Dieurold Louis v. State, 948 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Burgess v. State, 965 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)