Bridges v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bridges v. State

466 So. 2d 348, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 564, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12774

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 1985

DocketNo. 84-741

StatusPublished

This text of 466 So. 2d 348 (Bridges v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bridges v. State, 466 So. 2d 348, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 564, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12774 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the denial of his Motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which asserted ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree that he did not receive effective assistance and reverse and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault charges.

Defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated assault, trespass, and discharging a firearm in public, stemming from a bar fight. He asserts that he was ineffectively represented because his counsel failed to pursue a defense of voluntary intoxication, which is a complete defense to the specific intent crime of aggravated assault. Mellins v. State, 395 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). At the motion hearing, his counsel explained that he did not feel defendant’s intoxication “met the statutory criteria for a jury instruction.” Yet there was evidence that defendant had been drinking for several hours, and that he was described by witnesses as being “berserk” - “unstable” “half-there” and “a whole lot strung out.” We feel that in light of this, competent counsel would have pursued an intoxication defense.

[349]*349Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the aggravated assault charges only. In all other respects the conviction is affirmed.

LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the denial of his Motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which asserted ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree that he did not receive effective assistance and reverse and remand for a new trial on the aggravated assault charges.

Defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated assault, trespass, and discharging a firearm in public, stemming from a bar fight. He asserts that he was ineffectively represented because his counsel failed to pursue a defense of voluntary intoxication, which is a complete defense to the specific intent crime of aggravated assault. Mellins v. State, 395 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). At the motion hearing, his counsel explained that he did not feel defendant’s intoxication “met the statutory criteria for a jury instruction.” Yet there was evidence that defendant had been drinking for several hours, and that he was described by witnesses as being “berserk” - “unstable” “half-there” and “a whole lot strung out.” We feel that in light of this, competent counsel would have pursued an intoxication defense.

[349]*349Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the aggravated assault charges only. In all other respects the conviction is affirmed.

LETTS, GLICKSTEIN and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

466 So. 2d 348, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 564, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridges-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack