Robert Edward Curran v. State of Florida
229 So. 3d 1266
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Edward Curran was convicted of lewd or lascivious molestation of his step‑daughter; prosecution relied heavily on victim testimony and corroborative out‑of‑court statements from four witnesses.
- The State also introduced testimony about uncharged lewd acts, alleged physical violence (including threats and violence toward family pets), and played portions of the child protective team interview.
- Defense counsel elicited evidence of Curran’s prior conviction for battery of his biological daughter.
- Curran filed a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) stipulating to admission of the four hearsay witnesses without requesting the reliability hearing required by section 90.803(23), (4) failing to object to testimony about uncharged lewd acts, (5) failing to object to testimony about physical abuse, (6) failing to object to testimony about animal abuse, and (9) admitting evidence of a prior battery conviction.
- The circuit court summarily denied all claims for failure to sufficiently allege prejudice.
- The First District reversed as to grounds 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 and remanded for the trial court to attach record portions conclusively refuting the claims or hold an evidentiary hearing; the remainder of the denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Curran's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for stipulating to admission of four out‑of‑court child statements (hearsay witnesses) | Counsel should have sought the §90.803(23) reliability hearing; the witnesses were central and their exclusion would likely have changed the outcome | Counsel’s stipulation was reasonable trial strategy; Curran failed to show prejudice | Reversed as to this ground; Curran sufficiently alleged prejudice and case remanded for further proceedings |
| Failure to object to testimony about uncharged lewd acts | Such testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial; counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudicial | Admission was permissible and not shown to create reasonable probability of a different result | Reversed as to this ground; Curran sufficiently alleged prejudice and case remanded |
| Failure to object to testimony about physical abuse and animal abuse | Testimony bolstered victim’s credibility (explaining delay) and was highly prejudicial; objection could have altered outcome | No showing of reasonable probability of different result; objections would have been meritless | Reversed as to these grounds (5 & 6); Curran sufficiently alleged prejudice and case remanded |
| Admission of prior battery conviction (against biological daughter) | Prior conviction improperly bolstered victim’s claims and was unduly prejudicial; counsel ineffective for admitting it | Probative to credibility/propensity; Curran did not show prejudice | Reversed as to this ground (9); Curran sufficiently alleged prejudice and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Morrison v. State, 860 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (facially sufficient 3.850 claims require evidentiary hearing or record refutation)
- Jones v. State, 998 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2008) (mere conclusory prejudice allegations insufficient; must show reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Platt v. State, 201 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (erroneous admission of child‑hearsay testimony can be harmful; corroborative statements strongly affect credibility)
- Cherry v. State, 781 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2000) (standard for demonstrating prejudice under Strickland)