Philip Leigh v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Philip Leigh v. State of Florida

175 So. 3d 946, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15244, 2015 WL 5965455

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 2015

Docket4D14-967

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 So. 3d 946 (Philip Leigh v. State of Florida) 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

Philip Leigh v. State of Florida, 175 So. 3d 946, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15244, 2015 WL 5965455 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Philip Leigh, appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which followed an evidentiary hearing pursuant to this court’s decision in Leigh v. State, 58 So.3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). We reverse because, as the state concedes, the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(8)(A). Without these findings and conclusions, the appellate court is unable to properly review the trial court’s order. Tyrell v. State, 107 So.3d 536, 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Hunter v. State, 87 So.3d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in refusing to consider evidence and argument on his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the use of restraints on him during trial. We do not share the trial court’s narrower view of the claim and conclude that the appellant did, in fact, raise it. Of course, even if counsel were ineffective in failing to object, the appellant would still have to show prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Torres v. State, 9 So.3d 746, 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). At the evidentiary hearing, two jurors, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge all testified that the jurors could not see the restraints. Appellant, however, testified that the restraints must have been observed by the jury. The trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions on this issue for this Court to review.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall enter an order complying with rule 3.850(f)(8)(A).

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Philip Leigh, appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which followed an evidentiary hearing pursuant to this court’s decision in Leigh v. State, 58 So.3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). We reverse because, as the state concedes, the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f)(8)(A). Without these findings and conclusions, the appellate court is unable to properly review the trial court’s order. Tyrell v. State, 107 So.3d 536, 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); Hunter v. State, 87 So.3d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in refusing to consider evidence and argument on his claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the use of restraints on him during trial. We do not share the trial court’s narrower view of the claim and conclude that the appellant did, in fact, raise it. Of course, even if counsel were ineffective in failing to object, the appellant would still have to show prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Torres v. State, 9 So.3d 746, 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). At the evidentiary hearing, two jurors, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge all testified that the jurors could not see the restraints. Appellant, however, testified that the restraints must have been observed by the jury. The trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions on this issue for this Court to review.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall enter an order complying with rule 3.850(f)(8)(A).

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 So. 3d 946, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15244, 2015 WL 5965455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philip-leigh-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack