Watts v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Watts v. State

115 So. 3d 1049, 2013 WL 2420425, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8848

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 5, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-645

StatusPublished

This text of 115 So. 3d 1049 (Watts 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

Watts v. State, 115 So. 3d 1049, 2013 WL 2420425, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8848 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Shelly Ann Watts appeals the summary denial of her amended postconviction motion alleging ineffectiveness of trial counsel. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. We reverse as to two claims raised and affirm the rest without comment.

Following a jury trial, Watts was convicted of one count of trafficking in hydro-codone (28-30 grams) and one count of delivery of diazepam. She was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment, with a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment (for trafficking) and five years’ imprisonment (for sale of diazepam) to run concurrently.

At trial, to support its argument for conviction, the state claimed that Watts afforded her lifestyle from illegally selling prescription drugs, pointing to her expensive vehicle without any proof of a legal source of income by which she could afford it, as her employment would not provide sufficient income for such a purchase.

Watts argued that trial counsel failed to produce evidence of her additional work as a promoter of. Jamaican music artists which would have shown, beyond her own testimony, how she could have afforded a Mercedes or Escalade on a pharmacy technician’s salary. Because the record before us does not refute Watts’ claim of prejudice resulting from the state’s characterization of her, we remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or an eviden-tiary hearing on the matter.

As to Watts’ contention that she should be afforded an opportunity to amend a deficient claim regarding her son’s availability to testify in her defense, the state concedes that she should be allowed to amend in order to state a legally sufficient claim. We reverse this ground pursuant [1050]*1050to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761-62 (Fla.2007).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Shelly Ann Watts appeals the summary denial of her amended postconviction motion alleging ineffectiveness of trial counsel. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. We reverse as to two claims raised and affirm the rest without comment.

Following a jury trial, Watts was convicted of one count of trafficking in hydro-codone (28-30 grams) and one count of delivery of diazepam. She was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment, with a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment (for trafficking) and five years’ imprisonment (for sale of diazepam) to run concurrently.

At trial, to support its argument for conviction, the state claimed that Watts afforded her lifestyle from illegally selling prescription drugs, pointing to her expensive vehicle without any proof of a legal source of income by which she could afford it, as her employment would not provide sufficient income for such a purchase.

Watts argued that trial counsel failed to produce evidence of her additional work as a promoter of. Jamaican music artists which would have shown, beyond her own testimony, how she could have afforded a Mercedes or Escalade on a pharmacy technician’s salary. Because the record before us does not refute Watts’ claim of prejudice resulting from the state’s characterization of her, we remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim or an eviden-tiary hearing on the matter.

As to Watts’ contention that she should be afforded an opportunity to amend a deficient claim regarding her son’s availability to testify in her defense, the state concedes that she should be allowed to amend in order to state a legally sufficient claim. We reverse this ground pursuant [1050]*1050to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761-62 (Fla.2007).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

WARNER, LEVINE and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 So. 3d 1049, 2013 WL 2420425, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 8848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watts-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack