State v. Holmes

929 So. 2d 719, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8241, 2006 WL 1459648
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 26, 2006
DocketNo. 5D05-3891
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 929 So. 2d 719 (State v. Holmes) 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
State v. Holmes, 929 So. 2d 719, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8241, 2006 WL 1459648 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

LAWSON, J.

The State of Florida appeals an order summarily granting Steven Duain Holmes’ motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, without holding an ev-identiary hearing. We reverse.

Holmes was charged by information with attempted second degree murder for cutting the neck/throat of victim Keisha McKay with the blade of a “box cutter.” The trial judge instructed the jury on this charge, and on the lesser included offenses of aggravated battery, aggravated assault, battery, and assault. The jury returned a guilty verdict as to the lesser offense of aggravated battery, a second degree felony. The trial court sentenced Holmes to the lowest prison sentence permissible under the sentencing guidelines, followed by a period of probation. This court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See Holmes v. State, 861 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (table).

In his 3.850 motion, Holmes alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to also request a lesser instruction on the offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. The trial court granted the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, citing to Holmes v. State, 642 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). That case holds that: “Failure to give an instruction for an offense one step removed from the conviction constitutes per se reversible error.” Id. at 1388.1 In an en banc opinion currently on review by the Florida Supreme Court, the First District held that a postconviction claim based upon counsel’s failure to request a lesser included offense instruction cannot meet the prejudice prong of Strickland2 as a matter of law. See Sanders v. State, 847 So.2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), review granted, 905 So.2d 892 (Fla.2005). Our court has expressed disagreement with Sanders, but holds that the failure to request a jury instruction for a lesser included offense “states a color-able claim of ineffective assistance” which may be assessed “only ... after an eviden-tiary hearing.” James v. State, 881 So.2d 85, 86 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). Because it is possible that counsel’s decision not to re-[721]*721quest instruction on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter was a valid strategic decision, the trial judge should have at least afforded the State an opportunity to challenge Holmes’ allegations at an eviden-tiary hearing. Id. Therefore, at a minimum, reversal is warranted for an eviden-tiary hearing. Obviously, if our Supreme Court agrees with the First District’s reasoning in Sanders, summary denial of Holmes’ claim would be warranted.3

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. Williams
127 So. 3d 890 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
929 So. 2d 719, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8241, 2006 WL 1459648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-holmes-fladistctapp-2006.