From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fortner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 3, 1989
538 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Summary

holding that the allegation in the context of a plea that trial counsel failed to move to suppress an incriminating statement constituted a facially sufficient claim

Summary of this case from Fletcher v. State

Opinion

No. 88-3534.

February 3, 1989.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pasco County, Lawrence E. Keough, J.


Kenneth Fortner appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief.

Of the several grounds set out in the motion, only one presents a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. Fortner, convicted of eight armed robberies and one unarmed robbery, claims to have received ineffective assistance from his trial attorney. Specifically, Fortner alleges that after his arrest he was questioned by deputies in spite of his request to consult an attorney and for medical treatment for drug withdrawal symptoms. Neither demand was honored until he "cooperated," in this instance by confessing his involvement in the offenses and accompanying the deputies on a tour of all the businesses he had robbed. Finally, Fortner claims that counsel was apprised of these facts but nevertheless failed to move the suppression of the incriminating evidence. If these allegations are true, this could have constituted ineffective assistance. Cintron v. State, 495 So.2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

The trial court's order and accompanying exhibits do not conclusively refute this claim. They demonstrate only that Fortner's cooperation with police was cited by counsel in mitigation, after counsel had negotiated a no contest plea, and do not address what may have prompted that cooperation or whether counsel's investigation and advice to Fortner were adequate. Accordingly, we must remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

The trial court otherwise correctly found that Fortner's motion was without merit and its order is affirmed in all other respects.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

LEHAN, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fortner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Feb 3, 1989
538 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

holding that the allegation in the context of a plea that trial counsel failed to move to suppress an incriminating statement constituted a facially sufficient claim

Summary of this case from Fletcher v. State

holding that the allegation in the context of a plea that trial counsel failed to move to suppress an incriminating statement constituted a facially sufficient claim

Summary of this case from Wilson v. State

holding that the allegation in the context of a plea that trial counsel failed to move to suppress an incriminating statement constituted a facially sufficient claim

Summary of this case from Williams v. State
Case details for

Fortner v. State

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH M. FORTNER, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Feb 3, 1989

Citations

538 So. 2d 85 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. State

Appellant alleges that he would not have entered a plea in the absence of these alleged failures. See Stano…

Williams v. State

See Kellyv. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D1427 (Fla. 2d DCA, June 12, 1998), and Stanley v. State, 703 So.2d 1156…