118 So. 3d 944
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Juan Medina was placed on drug-offender probation after a 2005 nolo plea to possession with intent to sell; while on probation he was arrested for attempted second-degree murder and misdemeanor battery relating to a shooting of his girlfriend.
- The State sought revocation of Medina’s probation on three grounds: (1) committing attempted second-degree murder, (2) committing misdemeanor battery, and (3) possessing a firearm while on probation; a probation revocation hearing was held while the substantive charges were pending.
- At the revocation hearing the State presented testimony from the probation officer, the girlfriend (who described being punched and shot in the neck), and the girlfriend’s sister; Medina did not testify or call witnesses at the revocation hearing.
- The trial court revoked probation and sentenced Medina to 15 years; Medina later entered nolo contendere pleas in the substantive case with a stipulation that the plea would be set aside if the revocation was overturned.
- In a Rule 3.850 motion Medina claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for advising him not to testify (or failing to inform him of his right and the risks/benefits), alleging he would have testified to a self-defense/accident theory and that two detectives’ testimony would have supported him.
- The trial court granted post-conviction relief and vacated convictions; the appellate court reversed, holding Medina failed to satisfy Strickland’s prejudice prong because the probation could be (and was) revoked on the independent grounds of gun possession and battery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Medina) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising Medina not to testify at the revocation hearing / failing to advise him of his right and risks/benefits | Counsel prevented Medina from testifying about self-defense; had he testified the outcome of the revocation hearing would likely differ | Counsel advised Medina, told him decision was his, and strategically avoided testimony to protect the pending criminal defense | Court assumed possible deficiency but found no Strickland prejudice; claim fails |
| Whether the record required an on-the-record waiver colloquy before Medina declined to testify | Medina argued no record waiver exists, so counsel was ineffective | No on-the-record waiver is required; counsel’s off-record advice can suffice | No requirement for on-the-record waiver; counsel’s conduct not per se deficient |
| Whether testimony that the gun was an antique would have prevented revocation for firearm possession | Medina alleged the gun was an antique and he believed it so, negating intent to possess a criminally proscribed firearm | State showed evidence the gun was operative and Medina carried it for protection; counsel elicited girlfriend’s testimony that Medina believed it was antique, making Medina’s testimony cumulative | Even if counsel erred, revocation on gun-possession ground still supported; no prejudice shown |
| Whether counsel’s alleged failure to secure Medina’s testimony on self-defense prejudiced the overall revocation outcome | Medina claimed his testimony would have shown he acted in self-defense and changed result | Independent findings (battery and gun-possession) supported revocation; Medina’s own evidentiary admissions undercut exculpatory effect | No reasonable probability of a different result; Strickland prejudice not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Whitfield v. State, 923 So.2d 375 (Fla. 2005) (confirming Strickland two-prong test in Florida)
- Oisorio v. State, 676 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 1996) (addressing deprivation of right to testify and prejudice requirement)
- Preston v. State, 970 So.2d 789 (Fla. 2007) (defining reasonable-probability prejudice standard under Strickland)
- Jones v. State, 928 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 2006) (counsel not ineffective for failing to present cumulative evidence)
- Green v. State, 19 So.3d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (probation may be upheld on independent grounds even if one ground fails)
- Casana v. State, 546 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (affirming revocation where other sufficient grounds exist)
- Lawrence v. State, 831 So.2d 121 (Fla. 2002) (counsel not deficient for failing to obtain on-the-record waiver of right to testify)
- Nixon v. State, 758 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2000) (discussing permissible colloquy on certain unilateral defendant decisions)