Eric Lucas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eric Lucas v. State

147 So. 3d 611, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14010, 2014 WL 4426334

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 10, 2014

Docket4D14-172

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 147 So. 3d 611 (Eric Lucas 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

Eric Lucas v. State, 147 So. 3d 611, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14010, 2014 WL 4426334 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order which struck appellant’s rule 3.850 motion based on insufficiency of one claim. Appellant filed a premature appeal of the order which had granted leave to amend within thirty days. The postconviction time limit expired. Pursuant to Christner v. State, 984 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court. The court responded explaining that no amended motion had been filed within the time provided. The trial court entered a final order adopting its prior order striking the motion in its entirety.

In the claim at issue, appellant alleged that his counsel was ineffective in failing to consult and hire an ophthalmologist expert to rebut the State’s claim that the victim suffered “permanent damage” as an element of aggravated battery. The trial court agreed with the State that the claim was facially insufficient because appellant did not identify a specific witness, explain the testimony that could be elicited, or allege that the witness was available to testify at trial. Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 583 (Fla.2004). The court struck the entire motion with leave to amend. Neither the court, nor the State, addressed appellant’s other three claims. No records were attached.

The trial court erred in failing to follow our binding precedent. We confronted this issue in Terrell v. State, 9 So.3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), and explained:

As a threshold matter, the state asserts that this claim was facially insufficient because the defendant did not name the expert whom he wished to testify. Although the defendant is usually required to identify fact witnesses by name, we are aware of no authority requiring the defendant to provide the name of a particular expert where the defendant claims that trial counsel failed to secure an expert in a named field of expertise. We thus do not agree that the defendant’s postconviction claim was facially insufficient.

Id. at 1289. Appellant’s motion sufficiently explained the relevance and substance of the expected testimony and alleged that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.

The State in this appeal acknowledges that this matter should be remanded for the trial court to consider appellant’s other claims which were not addressed in the proceedings below. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(3). We agree.

*613 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order which struck appellant’s rule 3.850 motion based on insufficiency of one claim. Appellant filed a premature appeal of the order which had granted leave to amend within thirty days. The postconviction time limit expired. Pursuant to Christner v. State, 984 So.2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court. The court responded explaining that no amended motion had been filed within the time provided. The trial court entered a final order adopting its prior order striking the motion in its entirety.

In the claim at issue, appellant alleged that his counsel was ineffective in failing to consult and hire an ophthalmologist expert to rebut the State’s claim that the victim suffered “permanent damage” as an element of aggravated battery. The trial court agreed with the State that the claim was facially insufficient because appellant did not identify a specific witness, explain the testimony that could be elicited, or allege that the witness was available to testify at trial. Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 583 (Fla.2004). The court struck the entire motion with leave to amend. Neither the court, nor the State, addressed appellant’s other three claims. No records were attached.

The trial court erred in failing to follow our binding precedent. We confronted this issue in Terrell v. State, 9 So.3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), and explained:

As a threshold matter, the state asserts that this claim was facially insufficient because the defendant did not name the expert whom he wished to testify. Although the defendant is usually required to identify fact witnesses by name, we are aware of no authority requiring the defendant to provide the name of a particular expert where the defendant claims that trial counsel failed to secure an expert in a named field of expertise. We thus do not agree that the defendant’s postconviction claim was facially insufficient.

Id. at 1289. Appellant’s motion sufficiently explained the relevance and substance of the expected testimony and alleged that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.

The State in this appeal acknowledges that this matter should be remanded for the trial court to consider appellant’s other claims which were not addressed in the proceedings below. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(3). We agree.

*613 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 3d 611, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 14010, 2014 WL 4426334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-lucas-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack