Juan Pantoja v. State of Florida
226 So. 3d 1043
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Juan Pantoja was convicted of sexual battery on a child under 12 (by a defendant under 18) and lewd or lascivious molestation of a child under 12 (by a defendant 18 or older).
- Pantoja filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion raising multiple ineffective-assistance and related claims (Grounds 1, 3, and 4 at issue here).
- Ground 1: Pantoja alleged trial counsel ineffectively advised him to reject a 20-year plea offer.
- Ground 3: He alleged counsel failed to alert the trial court that a juror was sleeping during critical testimony.
- Ground 4: He alleged counsel failed to object to an erroneous jury instruction (and argued inconsistent verdicts were not properly addressed).
- The postconviction court summarily denied Grounds 1 and 4 and denied Ground 3 after an evidentiary hearing; the district court reviewed and found deficiencies in the orders and record attachments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ground 1: Counsel advised rejecting a 20-year plea | Counsel advised rejecting plea; ineffective assistance prejudiced Pantoja | Denial claimed record conclusively refuted the allegation | Reversed summary denial — claim was facially insufficient but not conclusively refuted; remand to allow Pantoja to amend under Spera |
| Ground 3: Juror sleeping during testimony | Counsel failed to alert court that juror was sleeping during critical testimony | Postconviction court found counsel alerted court and juror said he was listening (based on court file) | Reversed — trial court relied on parts of the record not attached; remand for court to attach transcript or support findings with competent evidence |
| Ground 4: Failure to object to erroneous jury instruction | Counsel failed to object to jury instructions and inconsistent verdicts resulted | Postconviction court relied on sentencing hearing record as refutation | Reversed — record attachments do not show what instructions were given or objections; remand to attach record or hold evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 835 (facial insufficiency of bare allegations about counsel’s advice to reject plea)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (recission on other grounds noted)
- Drakus v. State, 219 So. 3d 979 (district court reversal where claim was facially insufficient rather than conclusively refuted)
- Spera v. State, 971 So. 2d 754 (defendant should be allowed at least one opportunity to amend an insufficient 3.850 motion)
- Ferris v. State, 996 So. 2d 228 (trial court denial not on facial-insufficiency grounds can preclude appellant’s awareness of Spera application)
- Reynolds v. State, 99 So. 3d 459 (postconviction factual findings after evidentiary hearing reviewed for competent, substantial evidence)
- McLin v. State, 827 So. 2d 948 (summary denial of 3.850 claim is proper only if facially invalid or conclusively refuted by record)