Sanchez v. State
210 So. 3d 252
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Law enforcement seized a USPS package in Tampa after a narcotics dog alerted; the package, addressed to the alias "Jason Cardenas," contained a trafficking quantity of heroin.
- Issac G. Sanchez pleaded guilty to multiple offenses including trafficking, conspiracy, attempted trafficking, possession, unauthorized use of a license, and being a felon in possession; he later unsuccessfully moved to withdraw his plea.
- Sanchez was sentenced (including mandatory minimums) and his direct appeal was per curiam affirmed.
- Sanchez filed a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging four ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims; the postconviction court summarily denied relief.
- Grounds 3 and 4 alleged counsel failed to investigate the narcotics dog's reliability and failed to file a motion to suppress the package search (warrantless opening); the postconviction court found those claims facially sufficient but denied relief as Sanchez could not prove prejudice.
- The Second District affirmed denial as to grounds 1 and 2, but reversed as to grounds 3 and 4 and remanded for the postconviction court to either attach record evidence conclusively refuting those claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether counsel was ineffective for actions alleged in ground one | Sanchez alleged counsel was ineffective (details not specified on appeal) | State contended claims were legally insufficient or refuted by record | Affirmed — ground one legally insufficient or conclusively refuted |
| 2. Whether counsel was ineffective for actions alleged in ground two | Sanchez alleged counsel was ineffective (details not specified on appeal) | State contended claims were legally insufficient or refuted by record | Affirmed — ground two legally insufficient or conclusively refuted |
| 3. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/challenge reliability of narcotics dog alert | Sanchez: counsel failed to investigate dog certification/training and failed to file a suppression motion; but for that, he would have gone to trial | State: plea colloquy and counsel performance foreclose prejudice; record shows no entitlement to relief | Reversed on this point — claim facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted; remanded for record attachments or evidentiary hearing |
| 4. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the contents of the package because it was opened without a warrant | Sanchez: even if sniff supplied probable cause to seize, opening the package required a warrant; counsel should have moved to suppress and advised him accordingly | State: similar to above — plea colloquy and lack of prior suppression motion defeat claim | Reversed on this point — claim facially sufficient and not conclusively refuted; remanded for record attachments or evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Meus v. State, 968 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (standard of review for summary denial of postconviction relief)
- Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2004) (Strickland/Hill framework applied to post-plea ineffective assistance claims)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard when ineffective assistance follows a guilty plea)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- Johnson v. State, 904 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2005) (when an evidentiary hearing is required on a postconviction claim)
- Coursey v. State, 164 So. 3d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (failure to file motion to suppress can be legally sufficient postconviction claim)
- Campbell v. State, 139 So. 3d 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (same)
- Jenkins v. State, 44 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (plea colloquy satisfaction with counsel does not conclusively refute later claim that counsel failed to investigate)
- State v. Williams, 184 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (standing to challenge a package search when addressed to a fictitious name linked to defendant)
- Grue v. State, 130 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (canine alert generally provides probable cause but must be reliable under totality of circumstances)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (reliability of narcotics-detection-dog alerts evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- Daniels v. Cochran, 654 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (canine sniff alert does not eliminate warrant requirement to open package absent exception)
- Shelby v. State, 75 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (remand instructions when claims are facially sufficient)