Sneathen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sneathen v. State

161 So. 3d 570, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18171, 2014 WL 5781415

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 2014

DocketNo. 5D14-962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 So. 3d 570 (Sneathen 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

Sneathen v. State, 161 So. 3d 570, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18171, 2014 WL 5781415 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George C. Sneathen appeals the summary denial of his motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s order as to claims one through seven. We reverse as to claim eight as the record does not conclusively refute Sneathen’s claim. The trial court concluded that contrary to Sneathen’s contention, there was no evidentiary basis to allow the jury to consider the child’s prior history of sexual activity. That may be correct, but we cannot reach that conclusion based on the limited record before us and in light of the holdings in Hammond v. State, 660 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Dixon v. State, 605 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Therefore, while we express no opinion on the merits of claim eight or the admissibility of testimony proffered by Sneathen, we believe Sneathen has demonstrated entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on this claim.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

George C. Sneathen appeals the summary denial of his motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the trial court’s order as to claims one through seven. We reverse as to claim eight as the record does not conclusively refute Sneathen’s claim. The trial court concluded that contrary to Sneathen’s contention, there was no evidentiary basis to allow the jury to consider the child’s prior history of sexual activity. That may be correct, but we cannot reach that conclusion based on the limited record before us and in light of the holdings in Hammond v. State, 660 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Dixon v. State, 605 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Therefore, while we express no opinion on the merits of claim eight or the admissibility of testimony proffered by Sneathen, we believe Sneathen has demonstrated entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on this claim.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 So. 3d 570, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18171, 2014 WL 5781415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sneathen-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack