Coleman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coleman v. State

109 So. 3d 822, 2013 WL 645629, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2947

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 22, 2013

DocketNo. 5D11-3509

StatusPublished

This text of 109 So. 3d 822 (Coleman 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

Coleman v. State, 109 So. 3d 822, 2013 WL 645629, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2947 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, C.M., Senior Judge.

Coleman was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. His appeal to this court was affirmed. Coleman v. State, 39 So.3d 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Coleman now argues on his motion for post-conviction relief that his counsel was ineffective in that: (1) he failed to depose and call certain witnesses, (2) he improperly advised defendant that if he testified at trial, the State could inquire as to the details of his prior convictions so he did not testify, (3) he failed to advise defendant as to the maximum sentence he was facing so he rejected a more favorable plea offer, (4) he improperly “opened the door” so that a baggie of cannabis was admitted into evidence, (5) he improperly argued the motion for judgment of acquittal, and (6) he failed to move for mistrial based on misleading jury instructions.

The court summarily denied grounds (5) and (6) and ordered a hearing on the remaining points. Subsequently, however, the court also summarily denied ground (4). First, the summary dispositions:

(4) The court found, based on appropriate testimony (included in the record), that defense counsel’s use of the cannabis baggie was strategic and therefore not ineffective representation.

(5) Defense counsel did move for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence that defendant possessed the firearm. The motion was denied. This issue was raised and rejected on appeal.

(6) The jury instructions were the standard instructions approved for the offense. See Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650 (Fla.2000).

Concerning the remaining issues, an evidentiary hearing was held and defense counsel and appellant testified. Although their testimony was in conflict, the record justifies the court’s determination that the appropriate witnesses were called, appellant was not misadvised concerning the appropriate State inquiry into his criminal record if he testified, and appellant was properly advised as to the maximum [824]*824penalty should he wish to accept a plea offer.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J. and GRIFFIN, J., concur.

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

HARRIS, C.M., Senior Judge.

Coleman was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. His appeal to this court was affirmed. Coleman v. State, 39 So.3d 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Coleman now argues on his motion for post-conviction relief that his counsel was ineffective in that: (1) he failed to depose and call certain witnesses, (2) he improperly advised defendant that if he testified at trial, the State could inquire as to the details of his prior convictions so he did not testify, (3) he failed to advise defendant as to the maximum sentence he was facing so he rejected a more favorable plea offer, (4) he improperly “opened the door” so that a baggie of cannabis was admitted into evidence, (5) he improperly argued the motion for judgment of acquittal, and (6) he failed to move for mistrial based on misleading jury instructions.

The court summarily denied grounds (5) and (6) and ordered a hearing on the remaining points. Subsequently, however, the court also summarily denied ground (4). First, the summary dispositions:

(4) The court found, based on appropriate testimony (included in the record), that defense counsel’s use of the cannabis baggie was strategic and therefore not ineffective representation.

(5) Defense counsel did move for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence that defendant possessed the firearm. The motion was denied. This issue was raised and rejected on appeal.

(6) The jury instructions were the standard instructions approved for the offense. See Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650 (Fla.2000).

Concerning the remaining issues, an evidentiary hearing was held and defense counsel and appellant testified. Although their testimony was in conflict, the record justifies the court’s determination that the appropriate witnesses were called, appellant was not misadvised concerning the appropriate State inquiry into his criminal record if he testified, and appellant was properly advised as to the maximum [824]*824penalty should he wish to accept a plea offer.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, C.J. and GRIFFIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 3d 822, 2013 WL 645629, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 2947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack