Conley v. State
226 So. 3d 358
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Lapar Donta Conley was convicted by a jury of trafficking in oxycodone and conspiracy to traffic in oxycodone; sentenced to concurrent 26-year terms with a 25-year mandatory minimum and one year probation.
- Conley filed a pro se Rule 3.850 motion raising five ineffective-assistance-of-counsel grounds; the postconviction court summarily denied all grounds.
- Ground two alleged counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a Franks hearing to challenge the affidavit used to obtain the arrest warrant, asserting (a) a false statement that the confidential informant had no known criminal history and (b) an incorrect statement that there were 720 oxycodone pills (trial showed 360).
- The postconviction court acknowledged a pleading deficiency—Conley did not allege the officer intentionally or recklessly included false statements—but denied ground two on the merits as refuted by the record, finding 360 pills (44.952 grams) would have supported probable cause. The court did not attach the warrant affidavit or address the informant-history allegation.
- The Second District accepted Conley’s factual allegations as true for review, held the Franks-based claim was facially insufficient for failing to allege intent to deceive, and concluded the postconviction court should have allowed Conley to amend rather than deny the claim on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Conley’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a Franks hearing to challenge the warrant affidavit | Counsel should have sought a Franks hearing because the affidavit contained knowingly false statements (informant had no criminal history; affidavit overstated pill count) | Any challenge would fail because even 360 pills produced probable cause; claim is refuted by record | Court: Claim facially insufficient for not alleging officer’s intent; remand for dismissal-with-leave to amend (60 days) rather than summary denial |
| Whether the postconviction court may deny on the merits notwithstanding pleading defects | Conley argues deficiency could be corrected and merits not conclusively refuted without affidavit attached | State relied on trial chemist’s testimony to argue probable cause independent of alleged errors | Court: Pleading defect required opportunity to amend under Rule 3.850(f)(2); if amended and denied again, court must attach supporting record (including affidavit) when refuting claim |
| Whether other ineffective-assistance grounds (grounds 1, 3–5) were properly summarily denied | N/A (Conley raised four additional claims) | State: those claims were refuted by the record | Court: Affirmed summary denial of grounds 1, 3, 4, and 5 without comment |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes standards for challenging a warrant affidavit based on knowingly false statements or reckless omissions)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Jennings v. State, 123 So. 3d 1101 (Fla. 2013) (standard of review for summary denial of Rule 3.850 motions)
- State v. Petroni, 123 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (Franks requires allegations showing police conduct intended to dupe the issuing judge)
- Marquardt v. State, 156 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 2015) (discussing Franks standards in postconviction context)
- Wade v. State, 156 So. 3d 1004 (Fla. 2014) (counsel not ineffective for failing to move to suppress when challenge to warrant would not succeed)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2007) (court should allow at least one opportunity to correct pleading defects in postconviction motions)