State v. Bishop, No. 4D19-3443
Decision Date | 15 July 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 4D19-3443 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Brandon BISHOP, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Martin P. McDonnell of the Law Office of Martin P. McDonnell, Santa Rosa Beach, for appellee.
The State appeals a final order granting Brandon Bishop's ("Defendant") Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, finding counsel was ineffective and granting a new trial. On appeal, the State argues that the court erred in (1) granting Defendant's motion for postconviction relief; and (2) allowing Defendant's witness to testify as an expert. Finding merit to the State's first argument, we reverse. We affirm the second issue without further comment.
By way of background, Defendant invited his ex-girlfriend ("the victim") to his parents’ house where he attacked her with a sledgehammer, hitting her several times in the head. Defendant's mother interrupted the attack and Defendant fled. Defendant was apprehended soon after. While in police custody, Defendant made a request for counsel. During trial, there were multiple references to Defendant's request for counsel with no objection from trial counsel.
Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison. This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Bishop v. State , 100 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). In the opinion, we summarized the State's evidence of premeditation as follows:
Id. at 1193. This evidence, we determined, was sufficient to show that Defendant "committed the attempted killing according to a preconceived plan." Id. at 1194.
Defendant subsequently filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief, alleging eleven grounds. The trial court summarily denied the motion. Defendant appealed, and we remanded for an evidentiary hearing on three of the grounds:
(1) counsel was ineffective for failing to move to disqualify the trial judge on the ground that he had improper communications with the victim's family; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to have Bishop's competency evaluated at the time of the trial; and (3) counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately advise Bishop regarding his right to exclude evidence of his invocation of his right to counsel upon arrest. These claims are legally sufficient and are not conclusively refuted by the record provided.
Bishop v. State , 219 So. 3d 83, 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified he failed to move to exclude or suppress Defendant's request for counsel, and alleged it was not a strategic decision. Trial counsel believed that this failure prejudiced the case as evidence that Defendant had the state of mind to request counsel was inconsistent with the defense of insanity. The postconviction court found trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to exclude Defendant's invocation of his right to counsel. The written order, in relevant part, provided:
The Court has carefully considered what the effect of hearing Defendant's invocation of counsel had on the trial when the jury was simultaneously charged with determining whether he was legally insane that same day. In considering the totality of the evidence, the Court finds that Defendant was absolutely prejudiced. His defense at trial, insanity, was negated when the jury learned he subsequently had the state of mind to ask for legal representation and underscored the point that he may have known what he did was wrong at the time he committed the offense. The Court finds that a new trial is warranted.
This appeal follows.
The State argues the court erred in granting postconviction relief because (1) Defendant failed to establish he was misadvised when he agreed to trial couns...
To continue reading
Request your trial