Fernandez v. State
135 So. 3d 446
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Fernandez appeals a summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief.
- He pled guilty on April 2, 2009 to felony battery (08-CF-11276) and robbery (09-CF-772), receiving concurrent 10-year terms as a habitual offender.
- He moved to withdraw the plea under Rule 3.170(7); the trial court denied after an evidentiary hearing; affirmance on appeal followed (table decision).
- He filed the instant 3.850 motion challenging grounds related to the robbery charge, asserting ineffective assistance for failing to investigate or advise on an afterthought defense.
- The afterthought defense contends that force used to take property was motivated by anger at the victim for reporting him, not to rob, which would render the taking non-robbery, and that the defense could have affected plea strategy and jury instructions.
- The Fourth DCA remanded for either further record or an evidentiary hearing on these grounds; the court reversed in part, affirms in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grounds one and two are viable ineffectiveness claims requiring an evidentiary hearing. | Fernandez argues counsel failed to investigate and advise on the afterthought defense. | State contends no viable afterthought defense was available or properly supported. | Remand for evidentiary hearing or record supplementation on grounds one and two. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeJesus v. State, 98 So.3d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (recognizes afterthought defense concept and related contact with jury instructions)
- Perkins v. State, 814 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (concept of afterthought defense affecting robbery analysis)
- Hayes v. State, 120 So.3d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (acknowledges non-conclusive nature of plea colloquy regarding specific defenses)
- Munroe v. State, 28 So.3d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (requires evidentiary hearing to determine effectiveness of trial counsel on defenses)
- Gee v. State, 41 So.3d 1035 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (failure to investigate a factual defense can be facially sufficient for relief)