Todd Hannigan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Todd Hannigan v. State

201 So. 3d 211, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14632

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 30, 2016

Docket5D16-1958

StatusPublished

This text of 201 So. 3d 211 (Todd Hannigan 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

Todd Hannigan v. State, 201 So. 3d 211, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14632 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Todd Hannigan appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of Hannigan’s motion, except as to claim one.

In his first claim, Hannigan asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s requirement that Hannigan be placed in leg shackles throughout the trial. Quoting Jones v. *212 State, 998 So.2d 573, 588 (Fla.2008), the trial court found this claim to be meritless because “[ajbsent allegations that the actual jurors were exposed to [Hannigan] in shackles, he cannot demonstrate prejudice.”

A defendant who has filed a legally insufficient rule 3.850 motion must be given at least one opportunity to correct the deficiency, unless it is apparent that the defect cannot be corrected. Luckey v. State, 979 So.2d 353, 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007)); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f). Although Hannigan alleged in his postconviction motion that shackling is inherently prejudicial and that his counsel should have objected and required that the court hold a hearing before shackling Hannigan, he did not allege in his motion that the jurors were exposed to him in shackles. Because this pleading deficiency in claim one may be correctable, we reverse the summary denial and remand with directions that the trial court provide Hanni-gan sixty days to amend claim one of his motion, if, in good faith, he can do so.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Todd Hannigan appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of Hannigan’s motion, except as to claim one.

In his first claim, Hannigan asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court’s requirement that Hannigan be placed in leg shackles throughout the trial. Quoting Jones v. *212 State, 998 So.2d 573, 588 (Fla.2008), the trial court found this claim to be meritless because “[ajbsent allegations that the actual jurors were exposed to [Hannigan] in shackles, he cannot demonstrate prejudice.”

A defendant who has filed a legally insufficient rule 3.850 motion must be given at least one opportunity to correct the deficiency, unless it is apparent that the defect cannot be corrected. Luckey v. State, 979 So.2d 353, 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007)); Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f). Although Hannigan alleged in his postconviction motion that shackling is inherently prejudicial and that his counsel should have objected and required that the court hold a hearing before shackling Hannigan, he did not allege in his motion that the jurors were exposed to him in shackles. Because this pleading deficiency in claim one may be correctable, we reverse the summary denial and remand with directions that the trial court provide Hanni-gan sixty days to amend claim one of his motion, if, in good faith, he can do so.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 So. 3d 211, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/todd-hannigan-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack