Carter v. StateCarter v. State
Richard M. Carter seeks review of the trial court‘s order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Carter raises four challenges to his judgment and sentenсe, two of which effectively allege error which is not conclusively refuted by the rеcord. Accordingly, we reverse on those issues. We affirm the remainder of the issues without comment.
First, Carter alleges that counsel was aware of facts and witnesses which established that Carter was chronically intoxicated for over two months beforе and during the commission of the crimes but failed to pursue voluntary intoxication as a dеfense. The trial court found that Carter failed to effectively allege prejudice because the evidence established that he was not intoxicated at the time of the offense. The court made the following findings:
First, the probable cause аffidavits, detailing the actions of the Defendant and his co-defendant, indicate that some conscious level of planning went into the commission of these crimes. Second, the testimony at the sentencing hearing indicates that while the Defendant might have indulged in alcohol around the time the crimes were committed, he was not intoxicated. Detective Mallol testified at the Defendant‘s sentencing hearing. According to Detective Mallol, when he spoke with the Defendant after his arrest, he noted that the Defendant appeared to have been drinking. According to Detective Mаllol, he did not consider him to be drunk, and the Defendant was able to speak cohеrently with the detective.
The Defendant also testified at this hearing. He specifically stated that he made no excuses for his conduct and that these crimes were “spur of the moment.” He also testified that he had had primarily a good behavior reсord despite his “bad drinking problem.” Upon further questioning by the Court, the Defendant admitted that his co-defendant might have provided a suggestion with regard to the crimes, but he had acted “upon his own impulses” and had not been coerced by his co-defendant into cоmmitting the crimes.
This evidence does not conclusively refute Carter‘s contention thаt he was intoxicated at the time of the offense. In fact, Detective Mallol‘s tеstimony that he noted that Carter appeared to have been drinking and Carter‘s tеstimony that he felt he had a drinking problem support Carter‘s allegation. While this evidenсe may be disputed with the detective‘s testimony that he did not believe that Carter was intоxicated or the fact that the crime involved planning, the resolution of this dispute is fоr the jury. Because voluntary intoxication was a defense to the specific intent crimes of robbery, kidnaping, burglary, aggravated assault, and petit theft at the time of thе offenses,1 and the record does not conclusively refute Carter‘s allegation that he was intoxicated at the time of the crime, we reverse and remand for аn evidentiary hearing on the issue.
Second, Carter argues that trial counsel was ineffеctive for failing to move to suppress his conviction on grounds that it was illegally obtained while he was under the influence of alcohol. The trial
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.