Jude B. Lahens v. State
204 So. 3d 982
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jude B. Lahens was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and aggravated battery with a weapon; this Court previously affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
- Lahens filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 post-conviction motion alleging five ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims; the post-conviction court summarily denied four claims and held an evidentiary hearing on the fifth, which it denied.
- On appeal from the summary denials, Lahens challenged (1) trial counsel’s failure to object to a jury instruction on justifiable use of deadly force, (2) counsel’s failure to admit testimony from his pretrial Stand Your Ground hearing under the hearsay exception for former testimony, and (3) the court’s failure to rule on whether the deadly-force instruction was supported by the evidence as to the aggravated-battery victim.
- The post-conviction court relied on Hughes v. State to conclude prejudice could not be shown because the claimed error could have been raised as fundamental error on direct appeal; it also ruled the Stand Your Ground hearing testimony was inadmissible under § 90.804 because Lahens was not “unavailable.”
- The Fifth District reversed the summary denial of the three claims described above and remanded for further consideration, while affirming the denial as to the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to a jury instruction on justifiable deadly force | Lahens: failure to object prejudiced him under Strickland; the claim may show prejudice even if claim could have been raised as fundamental error on appeal | State/Post-conviction court: no prejudice because error could have been raised as fundamental error on direct appeal (citing Hughes) | Reversed: Hughes does not bar showing Strickland prejudice in post-conviction; claim improperly summarily denied |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to admit Lahens’s Stand Your Ground hearing testimony at trial under the former-testimony hearsay exception (§ 90.803(22)) | Lahens: the pretrial hearing testimony qualified as former testimony and was admissible under § 90.803(22) | State/Post-conviction court: testimony inadmissible under § 90.804 because Lahens was not "unavailable" | Reversed and remanded: court failed to address § 90.803(22); claim requires consideration rather than summary denial |
| Whether the justifiable-deadly-force instruction was unsupported by the evidence as to the aggravated-battery victim | Lahens: instruction lacked evidentiary support for that victim, so court must consider the claim | State: post-conviction court did not rule on the claim | Reversed and remanded: court erred by failing to consider the claim (Hebert) |
| Whether remaining ineffective-assistance claims were properly denied | Lahens: other claims raised in 3.850 motion merited review | State: post-conviction court’s denials were correct after record review/hearing | Affirmed in part: the appellate court affirmed denial as to the other claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Lahens v. State, 91 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (direct-appeal affirmation of convictions)
- Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (discussed by post-conviction court regarding ability to raise error on direct appeal)
- Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1999) (summary-denial standard: claims must be facially invalid or conclusively refuted by record)
- Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2000) (same principle regarding summary denials under rule 3.850)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hebert v. State, 162 So. 3d 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (post-conviction court must consider claims raised in a 3.850 motion)