CARLTON WILSON, 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.
Carlton Wilson, a pro se inmate, appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reverses, finding that the trial court improperly denied the motion without adequately establishing that the state's proffered evidence pertained to the correct case.
The trial court improperly summarily denied Wilson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The probable cause statement attached by the state in its response did not clearly pertain to case number 99-18863, as the facts described (arrest at residence, undercover drug transaction) conflicted with Wilson's allegations (arrest at motel). The trial court must either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court must attach portions of the record that conclusively refute a claim in a motion for post-conviction relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a lawyer's failure to interview witnesses and research the law on constructive possession may warrant post-convictio…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The facts of the probable cause statement attached by the state do not concur with the facts of the case referred to by Wilson in his motion.”
Establishes that the state's evidence did not clearly pertain to the correct case, making summary denial improper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson was charged with drug offenses in three separate cases. In case 99-18863, Wilson alleged he was visiting a motel room registered to Lashakete R…
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 Constructive Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Carlton Wilson, a pro se inmate, appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.
In the action below, the trial court required the state attorney to file a response to Wilson’s motion. In its response, the state attorney argued that Wilson’s claim was conclusively refuted on the record; thus, his motion should be denied. The trial court, adopting the state’s response, summarily denied Wilson’s motion.
On the record before this court it appears that Wilson has been charged with various drug offenses in three different lower court cases: 99-18863; 99-17114; and, 99-13353.
Wilson’s motion for postconviction relief is directed at case number 99-18863. There, Wilson alleged that he was visiting a motel room registered to Lashakete Robinson. During Wilson’s visit, he contends the police entered the motel and after a search found $120.00 and crack cocaine. Despite the fact that he had no idea that drugs were contained therein, he was arrested.
In his motion, Wilson asserted because his lawyer did not adequately interview defense witnesses, the two occupants of the motel, Ms. Robinson and Ms. Kesha D., who would have testified that Wilson was not aware that the drugs were in the room, and research the law on “constructive possession,” his lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.
Wilson further claimed that if his lawyer had advised him of mere proximity and constructive possession, he would not have entered a plea. Instead, he would have proceeded to trial.
In its response below, the state contended that his claim was conclusively refuted on the record because Wilson overlooked that he had sold cocaine to an undercover police officer. In support of its argument, the state attached a probable cause statement dated October 19, 1999, reporting an undercover drug transaction where Wilson reportedly sold a $20 piece of crack cocaine to an undercover officer. No other facts are developed in the State’s response.
The facts of the probable cause statement attached by the state do not concur with the facts of the case referred to by Wilson in his motion. Specifically, Wilson claims in his motion he was arrested at the motel. In the case which resulted in the probable cause statement dated October 19, 1999, Wilson was arrested at his residence. On the record before this court, there is no way of determining whether the probable cause statement attached to the state’s response pertains to case number 99-18863.
Accordingly, the trial court shall either attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute this claim or, shall con duct an evidentiary hearing on it to determine whether counsel was ineffective.
KLEIN, SHAHOOD, and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.