Rodriguez v. State

67 So. 3d 390, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12265, 2011 WL 3341513
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Rodriguez v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13854
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 4, 2011·No. No. 1D11-0617·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following remand, the trial court has again summarily denied the appellant’s claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the introduction into evidence of a mock Coke can used to store drugs, and a Florida Department of Law Enforcement report stating that 185.1 grams of cocaine had been confiscated from the appellant in an unrelated Madison County case. We affirm without discussion the claim involving the Coke can. However, because the trial court failed to attach the FDLE report, or other record evidence demonstrating that the appellant was not prejudiced by its admission, we are constrained to once again reverse. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 547 (Fla.1999) (The erroneous admission of “collateral crime evidence is presumptively harmful.”). If, as the appellant alleges, this report contains evidence of the unrelated Madison County case, which the state had been ordered not to discuss, and the report was presented to the jury, then the trial court must either attach record evidence conclusively refuting that the appellant was prejudiced or else hold a hearing on this claim.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

BENTON, C.J., ROBERTS and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

Rodriguez v. State, 67 So. 3d 390, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12265, 2011 WL 3341513 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

67 So. 3d 390 (Rodriguez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Goodwin v. State
751 So. 2d 537 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)