Johns v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Johns v. State

273 So. 3d 214

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 2019

DocketCase No. 5D18-1877

StatusPublished

This text of 273 So. 3d 214 (Johns 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

Johns v. State, 273 So. 3d 214 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Lewis-Steven Johns appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court's order without comment except as to claim three. As to that claim, we reverse.

In claim three, Johns argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court improperly considered impermissible matters-his "psychopathy" and that he might "be a budding psychopath" when there was no evidence to support the trial court's observations. A defendant's due process rights are violated when a trial court considers unsubstantiated matters at sentencing. See McGill v. State, 148 So. 3d 531, 531-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Crouse v. State, 101 So. 3d 901, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ). The failure to preserve such an issue for appeal may well be ineffective assistance of counsel.

As such, we reverse the trial court's summary denial of claim three. On remand, the trial court should either attach additional records to conclusively refute the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. The court must then decide whether Johns has established that his counsel's performance was deficient and if he was prejudiced as a result. See Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1178 (Fla. 2004).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Lewis-Steven Johns appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court's order without comment except as to claim three. As to that claim, we reverse.

In claim three, Johns argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court improperly considered impermissible matters-his "psychopathy" and that he might "be a budding psychopath" when there was no evidence to support the trial court's observations. A defendant's due process rights are violated when a trial court considers unsubstantiated matters at sentencing. See McGill v. State, 148 So. 3d 531, 531-32 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Crouse v. State, 101 So. 3d 901, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ). The failure to preserve such an issue for appeal may well be ineffective assistance of counsel.

As such, we reverse the trial court's summary denial of claim three. On remand, the trial court should either attach additional records to conclusively refute the claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. The court must then decide whether Johns has established that his counsel's performance was deficient and if he was prejudiced as a result. See Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1178 (Fla. 2004).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, COHEN and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 So. 3d 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johns-v-state-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack