Case Name: Marcial RODRIQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2008-10-29
Citations: 993 So. 2d 152
Docket Number: No. 1D07-2869
Parties: Marcial RODRIQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: PADOVANO, J., concurs; WOLF, J., concurs and dissents with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 993
Pages: 152–154

Head Matter:
Marcial RODRIQUEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 1D07-2869.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct. 29, 2008.
Marcial Rodriquez, pro se, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General; and Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Opinion:
BROWNING, C.J.
Marcial Rodriquez (Appellant) appeals a final order denying his timely, sworn Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging eight claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the order in substantial part but are constrained to reverse the ruling as to Ground Eight and to remand this cause to the circuit court pursuant to Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007).
A jury found Appellant guilty, as charged, with three counts of sale or delivery of cocaine, two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver, and one count of trafficking in cocaine (28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams). Appellant was designated a habitual felony offender and sentenced accordingly. His convictions and sentences were affirmed in Rodriguez [sic] v. State, 889 So.2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The circuit court summarily denied Grounds One, Five, and Eight of the motion for post-conviction relief but ordered the State to respond to the remaining five grounds. After the State filed its response, the circuit court denied relief on Ground Four without a hearing. After the State conceded the need for an evidentiary hearing, the court scheduled one to address Grounds Two, Three, Six, and Seven. Appellant moved for appointment of counsel and an interpreter. An interpreter was provided, but the motion for appointment of counsel was denied. At the conclusion of the testimony at the evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the four remaining grounds for relief.
Appellant's first issue on appeal challenges the circuit court's failure to appoint counsel for the evidentiary hearing. We find no abuse of discretion in this ruling, given the specific factors in Appellant's case. See Graham v. State, 372 So.2d 1363, 1366 (Fla.1979).
Another issue on appeal challenges the denial of Ground Eight as facially insufficient. This claim alleged that trial counsel remained silent and failed to object when "inadmissible, prejudicial evidence" in the form of a Coca-Cola can and an F.D.L.E. laboratory report was introduced. In support of his argument as to only this issue, Appellant contends that the circuit court should have permitted him to amend this claim pursuant to Spera, 971 So.2d at 761. The circuit court denied Ground Eight in 2006. The Supreme Court of Florida did not issue Spera until November 2007, which was after the evi-dentiary hearing was held and the final order issued in Appellant's case. Even so, Spera pertains to cases such as Appellant's in which the appeal was pending when Spera was issued. See Watson v. State, 975 So.2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Pierre v. State, 973 So.2d 547 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). But see Davis v. State, 993 So.2d 1045, 1046, 2008 WL 508654 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 27, 2008) (rejecting proposition that Spera should be applied retroactively); Landeverde v. State, 989 So.2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (same reasoning). The Spera issue was preserved only as to Ground Eight in Appellant's initial brief. See Watson, 975 So.2d at 573.
In the final issue on appeal, Appellant asserts that the circuit court erred in summarily denying Ground Five as not a cognizable issue under rule 3.850 because it could and should have been raised on direct appeal. See Moore v. State, 768 So.2d 1140, 1141 — 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We find no error. This claim essentially alleged that it was error to allow into evidence an audiotape that could have confused the jury regarding Appellant's prior record. "Allegations of ineffective assistance cannot be used to circumvent the rule that post-conviction proceedings cannot serve as a second appeal." Medina v. State, 573 So.2d 293, 295 (Fla.1990); Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069, 1072 (Fla.1995).
We AFFIRM the final order denying the motion for post-conviction relief in all respects, except for the denial of Ground Eight, which we are compelled to REVERSE AND REMAND to the circuit court pursuant to the requirements of Spera, to allow Appellant the opportunity to amend his facially insufficient eighth claim within a reasonable time period. See Sierra v. State, 993 So.2d 1064, 2008 WL 2403708 (Fla. 1st DCA June 16, 2008).
PADOVANO, J., concurs; WOLF, J., concurs and dissents with opinion.