ZANCHEZ v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5557
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Zanchez appeals the postconviction denial of her Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion.
- She raised two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; the second claim was denied with no further discussion.
- Her first claim alleged counsel failed to file a motion to suppress evidence from an allegedly illegal search.
- She pled to aggravated manslaughter of a child and received a twenty-year sentence; the child was born alive but the body was not recovered.
- Facts include a ward roommate scenario where the boyfriend’s mother, who speaks no English, let police into the house; officers collected evidence after a waiver signed in English by Zanchez.
- The postconviction court refused to consider the suppression claim, citing Stano and Dean as preventing a behind-the-plea inquiry; the court did not properly address facial sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the suppression claim facially sufficient to avoid Stano’s behind-the-plea bar? | Zanchez argues the claim is legally sufficient to proceed. | State argues the record precludes going behind the plea under Stano/Dean. | Claim must be stricken as facially insufficient; remand to allow amendment. |
| Did Zanchez plead prejudice under Strickland for ineffective assistance regarding suppression? | Counsel failed to file a suppression motion, prejudicing defense. | No prejudice shown; plea forecloses ineffective-assistance claim. | No prejudice alleged; Strickland prejudice not established; remand for facially sufficient pleading only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stano v. State, 520 So.2d 278 (Fla.1988) (behind-the-plea inquiry barred when plea entered and investigation deemed pointless)
- Dean v. State, 580 So.2d 808 (Fla.3d DCA 1991) (limits on going behind a plea in postconviction review)
- Williams v. State, 717 So.2d 1066 (Fla.2d DCA 1998) (ineffective-assistance for failure to investigate suppression as facially sufficient claim)
- Spencer v. State, 889 So.2d 868 (Fla.2d DCA 2004) (prosecution of suppression-related ineffective-assistance claim not waived by plea)
- Nelson v. State, 996 So.2d 950 (Fla.2d DCA 2008) (general discussion of waiving motions does not bar 3.850 claims to suppress evidence)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice element of guilty-plea ineffective-assistance standard is governed by Strickland)
- Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 761 (Fla.2007) (facially sufficient motion standard and leave-to-amend procedures)