McKinney v. State, 98-1713
| Citation | 722 So.2d 933 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1713,98-1713 |
| Parties | Robert Earl McKINNEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which claimed that defense counsel had rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by not presenting at trial, as a defense to the specific intent crime of burglary of a structure, the defense of voluntary intoxication. We reverse because the record excerpts attached to the order denying relief do not conclusively refute the legally sufficient allegations contained in appellant's motion and sworn memorandum of law.
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of burglary of a structure and possession of burglary tools. The testimony presented by the state at trial, as shown in the record excerpts attached to the trial court's order denying relief, showed that appellant had been the only individual found by law enforcement inside a fence which had a hole cut in it and which surrounded the structure alleged to have been burglarized. The record excerpts attached to the order denying relief show that defense counsel presented no defense other than cross-examination of the state's witnesses. These record excerpts also show that the only apparent line of defense pursued by defense counsel at trial was that an unknown second individual had actually been inside the fence line attempting to break into the structure.
Appellant timely filed the subject 3.850 motion and accompanying sworn memorandum of law claiming that defense counsel had rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by not presenting the voluntary intoxication defense at trial. In his motion, appellant alleged, based on an attached pretrial motion in limine that had been filed by defense counsel, that defense counsel had known prior to trial that one or more witnesses could have testified that appellant had smoked crack cocaine at some unspecified time in the past and that evidence of a crack pipe had been recovered at the scene of the crime. Appellant further alleged in his motion that deposition testimony from one of the detectives who investigated the case, an excerpt of which was attached to the memorandum of law, "gave some indication" that appellant had been intoxicated. Appellant also alleged in his motion that he had told both defense counsel and the detective that he had been intoxicated, he had been smoking cocaine, and he did not realize that he had wandered into the building. Finally, in his memorandum of law, appellant alleged, "if his defense attorney would have presented voluntary intoxication as a defense, with the record reflecting that witnesses were ready to testify to the defendant's intoxication, the out-come [sic] of the trial would have been different."
The trial court summarily denied appellant's motion, finding that the motion failed to state a legally sufficient basis for relief since evidence of the consumption of intoxicants prior to the commission of the crime, without any evidence that appellant had actually been intoxicated at the time of the offense, would not have been sufficient to support the defense of voluntary intoxication. The trial court also noted that the defense of voluntary intoxication would have been inconsistent with the defense presented at trial that a second individual had actually been the one attempting to break into the building.
Contrary to the trial court's finding in its order denying relief, the allegations set forth in appellant's motion and sworn memorandum of law were legally sufficient to state a colorable claim that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Straitwell v. State, 2D02-3097.
...the attorney should have investigated the claim. Boehm v. State, 776 So.2d 332, 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also McKinney v. State, 722 So.2d 933, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). This court has stated that an evidentiary hearing is warranted to determine whether counsel was ineffective for giving......
-
Boehm v. State, 4D00-4110.
...intoxication at the time of the offense sufficient that the attorney should have investigated the claim. See McKinney v. State, 722 So.2d 933, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Appellant alleges in his motion that counsel failed to inform him that his only viable defense was voluntary intoxication. ......
-
O'BRYANT v. State, 1D98-3107.
...intoxication at the time of the offense, should have alerted his counsel to the possibility of such a defense. See McKinney v. State, 722 So.2d 933, 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In the context of a plea case, a defendant sufficiently pleads the prejudice component of such an ineffective assista......
-
Foster v. State, 1D02-1090.
...at the time of the offense, or that he told his counsel that he was intoxicated at the time of the offense. See McKinney v. State, 722 So.2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Here, Appellant sufficiently alleged that he informed his attorney that he was intoxicated at the time of the offense in that......