Meehan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Meehan v. State

793 So. 2d 1169, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12905, 2001 WL 1047411

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 2001

DocketNo. 1D01-0506

StatusPublished

This text of 793 So. 2d 1169 (Meehan 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

Meehan v. State, 793 So. 2d 1169, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12905, 2001 WL 1047411 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kevin M. Meehan appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion insofar at it alleged that defense counsel was ineffective for not investigating and pursuing a defense of voluntary intoxication. See, e.g., Hester v. State, 732 So.2d 331, 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bartley v. State, 689 So.2d 372, 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The trial court denied the motion on the ground that a claim of voluntary intoxication would have been inconsistent with Mr. Meehan’s defense of innocence. The record does suggest that defense counsel may well have made a tactical decision to forgo a voluntary intoxication defense in favor of the defense raised at trial. Nevertheless, a determination that defense counsel made a tactical decision to forgo a defense normally requires an evidentiary hearing. See Hester, 732 So.2d at 332 (“While the decision to employ a misidentification defense rather than one of voluntary intoxication may have been a tactical one on the part of appellant’s attorney, such a determination normally cannot be made without an evi-dentiary hearing.”). “[P]resentation of an arguably inconsistent defense, standing alone, does not conclusively show that failure to present a voluntary intoxication defense was a tactical decision.” Bacon v. State, 729 So.2d 964, 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We therefore reverse on this point and remand for an evidentiary hearing. We otherwise affirm.

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; and REMANDED.

BOOTH, BENTON, and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kevin M. Meehan appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion insofar at it alleged that defense counsel was ineffective for not investigating and pursuing a defense of voluntary intoxication. See, e.g., Hester v. State, 732 So.2d 331, 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Bartley v. State, 689 So.2d 372, 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The trial court denied the motion on the ground that a claim of voluntary intoxication would have been inconsistent with Mr. Meehan’s defense of innocence. The record does suggest that defense counsel may well have made a tactical decision to forgo a voluntary intoxication defense in favor of the defense raised at trial. Nevertheless, a determination that defense counsel made a tactical decision to forgo a defense normally requires an evidentiary hearing. See Hester, 732 So.2d at 332 (“While the decision to employ a misidentification defense rather than one of voluntary intoxication may have been a tactical one on the part of appellant’s attorney, such a determination normally cannot be made without an evi-dentiary hearing.”). “[P]resentation of an arguably inconsistent defense, standing alone, does not conclusively show that failure to present a voluntary intoxication defense was a tactical decision.” Bacon v. State, 729 So.2d 964, 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We therefore reverse on this point and remand for an evidentiary hearing. We otherwise affirm.

REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; and REMANDED.

BOOTH, BENTON, and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

793 So. 2d 1169, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 12905, 2001 WL 1047411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meehan-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack