From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan 11, 2012
78 So. 3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

Summary

holding defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of trial counsel on the face of the record, where counsel failed to move to sever counts alleging additional sexual assaults until after jury selection and failed to properly contest similar-fact evidence, and prejudice found where evidence not conclusive

Summary of this case from Mars v. State

Opinion

No. 4D10–1383.

2012-01-11

Archie HILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene C. Hvizd, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene C. Hvizd, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

WARNER, J.

This case presents a very rare incidence where ineffective assistance of counsel is apparent on the face of the record. Trial counsel failed to move to sever two distinct counts of a criminal information until after the jury was informed of both crimes. Although the trial court tried to salvage a bad situation, the damage was irreparable, as counsel continued to perform ineffectively. We are compelled to reverse.

The state filed an information against appellant in St. Lucie County, Florida, alleging four counts: count I for sexual battery by digital penetration of A.W.G., a child under 12 by a perpetrator 18 or older, for incidents that occurred between November 19, 1997, and November 18, 1998; count II for sexual battery by oral penetration of or union with A.W.G., a child under 12 by a perpetrator 18 or older, during the same time period; count III for lewd or lascivious molestation of D.A.R., a victim 12 to 16, for incidents that occurred between December 1, 2003, and December 31, 2003; and, count IV for lewd or lascivious molestation of D.A.R., a victim 12 to 16, for incidents that occurred between August 29, 2005, and May 4, 2007.

At jury selection on February 8, 2010, the trial judge read all four counts to potential jurors. The jury was chosen and sworn, and the court asked if the attorneys had any motions, to which defense counsel Stephen Fromang responded, “No, I'm going to go back and ... take a good hard look at it now.” The next morning, Mr. Fromang filed a Motion to Sever Counts III and IV, stating that he thought the state had nolle prossed them, and because of this, he was not ready to proceed on those counts and had not conducted discovery.

The court expressed its irritation with Mr. Fromang and admonished him for filing the motion so late. Fromang responded, “I didn't—I just was telling you, Judge, it didn't coalesce, but when it did, I—I—I presented it to the Court.” Fromang stated that he had based his assumption that the state had nolle prossed the counts on the fact that D.A.R. had recanted her story in a letter and said she didn't want to be involved in the trial. The state maintained, however, that D.A.R. had never recanted and that Mr. Fromang was “aware that she's always been involved in the picture.” Mr. Fromang admitted that he never took her deposition, nor had he ever received a nolle prosse from the state.

The prosecutor suggested that Mr. Fromang ask for a mistrial on those two counts and waive jeopardy so that the court could sever counts III and IV. Mr. Fromang immediately agreed. The court then asked the prosecutor how she wished to proceed, and she responded that she believed that counts I and II were interrelated to counts III and IV. The court then suggested that the Williams

DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

1. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959).


Summaries of

Hills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan 11, 2012
78 So. 3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

holding defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of trial counsel on the face of the record, where counsel failed to move to sever counts alleging additional sexual assaults until after jury selection and failed to properly contest similar-fact evidence, and prejudice found where evidence not conclusive

Summary of this case from Mars v. State

reversing on direct appeal two counts of sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve based on ineffective assistance of counsel; concluding that the ineffectiveness was obvious on the face of the appellate record, the prejudice caused by the conduct was indisputable, and a tactical explanation for the conduct was inconceivable

Summary of this case from Swearingen v. State

observing that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is generally not raised on direct appeal, but noting an exception to this rule applies in situations “ ‘when the claimed ineffectiveness is apparent on the face of the record’ ”

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

Hills v. State

Case Details

Full title:Archie HILLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Date published: Jan 11, 2012

Citations

78 So. 3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

Citing Cases

Cooper v. Jones

" Cooper, 137 So.3d at 532 (citing Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 642 (Fla. 2000); Hills v. State, 78…

Swearingen v. State

Accordingly, we reverse her conviction and remand this case for a new trial. See Hills v. State, 78 So.3d…