Joshua Walker v. State
223 So. 3d 388
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Joshua Walker was convicted of multiple offenses (including attempted first‑degree murder, burglary, attempted robbery); convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Walker filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on three grounds: (1) failure to move to suppress out‑of‑court and in‑court identifications from a photo lineup, (2) misadvice causing him not to testify, and (3) failure to move to suppress a wallet found at the scene.
- The postconviction court summarily denied all three grounds and attached most of the trial transcript to its order.
- Record shows Walker was the only person in the photo lineup with extensive facial scarring/blotchy complexion; the victim testified the blotches were how he recognized the assailant and that he saw the assailant via the rearview mirror.
- The wallet introduced contained Walker’s identification and was found at the scene; trial court previously found no basis to object to its admission.
- Appellate court reviews summary denials de novo to determine whether the record conclusively refutes claims or the claims fail as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to move to suppress photo lineup | Walker: lineup was unnecessarily suggestive because he was only person with extensive facial scarring/blotchy complexion, creating substantial likelihood of misidentification | State: detective could not search database by facial markings; even if suggestive, victim had a good view so no substantial likelihood of misidentification | Reversed as to this ground; record attached to denial did not conclusively refute claim — remand for attachments or evidentiary hearing |
| 2. Counsel misadvised Walker not to testify | Walker: counsel told him testifying would allow State to present details of his extensive criminal record (affirmative misadvice) | State: trial counsel’s advice was sound (implicit) or not proven | Reversed as to this ground; cognizable claim of affirmative misadvice — remand for attachments or evidentiary hearing |
| 3. Failure to move to suppress wallet evidence | Walker: wallet was irrelevant and should have been suppressed | State: wallet found at scene contained Walker’s ID and was relevant to presence at the scene; trial court found no basis to object | Affirmed as to this ground; no meritorious basis for suppression so no ineffective assistance shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (factors for assessing reliability of identification and misidentification risk)
- Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2005) (test for suppressing out‑of‑court or in‑court identifications)
- Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2002) (identification procedure standards)
- Dorsey v. State, 5 So. 3d 702 (photo lineup impermissibly suggestive when defendant had unique facial hair)
- Rodriguez v. State, 909 So. 2d 955 (affirmative misadvice about impeachment with prior convictions is cognizable)
- Pullum v. State, 893 So. 2d 627 (postconviction courts must attach specific records conclusively showing entitlement to no relief)
- Harris v. State, 204 So. 3d 973 (de novo review of summary denial under rule 3.850)
- Walker v. State, 86 So. 3d 1143 (direct appeal of Walker’s convictions)