Court Opinion

ID: 9902613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 15:20:44.441865+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:54.968814
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D23-818
                 LT Case No. 2020-CF-000891-A
                 _____________________________

JEREMY NEWCOMER,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

3.850 appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County.
Daniel B. Merritt, Jr., Judge.

Jeremy Newcomer, East Palatka, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J.
Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

                         October 6, 2023

HARRIS, J.

    Appellant, Jeremy Newcomer, appeals the summary denial of
his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule
of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because portions of claims one and
three are not conclusively refuted by the record, we reverse and
remand for attachment of the records or an evidentiary hearing.
We also remand for the court to provide Newcomer an opportunity
to amend claim two of his postconviction motion.
    Newcomer was charged with felony fleeing or attempting to
elude, felony petit theft, and no valid driver’s license. At trial, the
State’s key witness, Officer Feola, testified that he was in his
patrol car behind a vehicle being driven by Newcomer and, after
running the vehicle’s license plate, learned that the tag was
reported stolen. Feola followed Appellant’s vehicle approximately
one quarter of a mile at about 50–55 mph, during which time
Newcomer continued accelerating “much faster” than Feola was,
“changing lanes very abruptly and aggressively, trying to
maneuver his way around cars to evade” him.

     At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Newcomer of
felony fleeing or attempting to elude and no valid driver’s license.
The trial court sentenced Newcomer to 12 years in prison. This
Court affirmed his judgment and sentence. Newcomer v. State, 334
So. 3d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022).

     Newcomer subsequently filed a rule 3.850 postconviction
motion. In that motion, Newcomer alleged that his trial counsel
was ineffective for failing to depose and investigate the State’s key
witness, Officer Feola; failing to investigate video footage; failing
to investigate, subpoena, and call an eyewitness; advising
Newcomer not to testify; and failing to advise Newcomer to accept
a plea offer. The trial court summarily denied each of these claims,
and Newcomer now challenges that summary denial.

     To state a facially sufficient ineffective assistance of counsel
claim, the defendant must allege sufficient facts to establish a
prima facie case under the two-part test established in Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The defendant must show
counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient
performance prejudiced the defense. Id. at 687.

     The standard of review of a summary denial of a rule 3.850
motion is de novo. Lebron v. State, 100 So. 3d 132, 133 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2012). “To uphold the trial court’s summary denial of claims
raised in a 3.850 motion, the claims must be either facially invalid
or conclusively refuted by the record. Further, where no
evidentiary hearing is held below, we must accept the defendant’s
factual allegations to the extent they are not refuted by the record.”

                                  2
Peede v. State, 748 So. 2d 253, 257 (Fla. 1999) (internal citation
omitted).

     In his first claim, Newcomer alleged counsel was ineffective
for failing to investigate and depose Feola. He asserted that the
State’s entire case hinged on Feola’s testimony, and defense
counsel’s strategy was to hope that the officer would not show up
at trial. Newcomer alleged that if counsel had deposed or
interviewed Feola, he would have learned that Newcomer and
Feola had “an undesirable past history.” Specifically, Feola tried
to recruit Newcomer to be an informant, but Newcomer declined,
thereby angering Feola. Had counsel deposed Feola, he would have
learned that Feola targeted Newcomer on the date of the incident
to obtain leverage in order to get Newcomer to be an informant.

     “[W]hen failure to depose is alleged as part of an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, the appellant must specifically set
forth the harm from the alleged omission, identifying ‘a specific
evidentiary matter to which the failure to depose witnesses would
relate.’” Ferrell v. State, 29 So. 3d 959, 969 (Fla. 2010) (quoting
Davis v. State, 928 So. 2d 1089, 1117 (Fla. 2005)).

     “[A]lthough defense counsel is entitled to broad deference
regarding trial strategy, when the court is confronted with a claim
of ineffective assistance, a finding that some action or inaction by
defense counsel was tactical is generally inappropriate without an
evidentiary hearing.” Hamilton v. State, 860 So. 2d 1028, 1029
(Fla. 5th DCA 2003). An exception to this general rule occurs when
the reasonableness of counsel’s strategy is obvious from the record.
See Pomposello v. State, 940 So. 2d 500, 502 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006);
Jackson v. State, 975 So. 2d 485, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

     Newcomer identified a specific evidentiary matter that the
deposition of Feola would reveal. He asserted that the deposition
would reveal his and Feola’s “sour relationship.” However, the
attached records show counsel’s efforts to avoid revealing that
relationship so as not to prejudice the defense. Also, the record
reflects that even without deposing Feola, counsel was fully aware
of the nature of the officer’s testimony, because he had the benefit
of the arrest affidavit and he effectively and extensively cross-
examined the officer on the details of the alleged offenses. While
counsel could have deposed Feola to learn the nature of Feola and

                                 3
Newcomer’s prior relationship, it is clear from the record that
counsel did not want to disclose that relationship so as not to
reveal, or suggest, that Newcomer had a prior criminal record or
committed prior bad acts. As counsel’s performance was not
deficient in this regard, we affirm the denial of Newcomer’s first
claim.

     Also in claim one, Newcomer alleged that counsel should have
obtained the dash-cam or body-cam videos, as well as intersection
and business camera footage, from the incident. He asserted that
contrary to Feola’s testimony, there were cameras at the
intersection and all Hernando County Sheriff’s patrol vehicles had
cameras after 2003 that automatically began recording when
lights and sirens were activated. He alleged footage would show he
did not accelerate or flee from the officer.

     The trial court found Newcomer had no evidence to show all
Hernando County vehicles had cameras after 2003, and that his
claim was speculative. Although the trial court characterized the
claim as such, Newcomer affirmatively alleged there were cameras
in the patrol cars and at the intersections. His allegations are
accepted as true unless conclusively refuted by the record. There
is nothing in the record to refute Newcomer’s claim that there were
traffic cameras, and had counsel investigated those cameras, he
would have obtained footage contradicting Feola’s testimony about
the incident. See Happel v. State, 330 So. 3d 122, 123 (Fla. 2d DCA
2021) (“While some of Happel’s statements were conclusory, he
specifically alleged that the videos existed and would have shown
that he did not shoot at the officer. The court was required to
accept these assertions as true to the extent that they are not
refuted by the record.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand this
portion of claim one for attachment of the records conclusively
refuting the claim or for the court to hold an evidentiary hearing.

     In claim two, Newcomer alleged that counsel was ineffective
for failing to call witness Michelle Roberts, the female passenger
in his car during the incident. He alleged that prior to trial he told
counsel about the female passenger, “Michelle,” but Newcomer
could not remember her last name, address or phone number. A
year later, prior to trial, Michelle contacted Newcomer in the
county jail and provided her address. She also reached out to the
public defender’s office, but they could not supply her with

                                  4
attorney information. Newcomer alleged counsel should have
investigated Michelle, because Michelle would have testified that
Newcomer did not accelerate at a high rate of speed, and that he
did not weave in and out of traffic.

     In order to allege failure to investigate or call witnesses, a
defendant must allege “the identity of the witnesses, their
testimony, that the witnesses were available to testify at the trial,
and how this lack of testimony prejudiced the outcome of the
verdict.” Rollins v. State, 997 So. 2d 1288, 1288–89 (Fla. 4th DCA
2009); Bennett v. State, 838 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to call witnesses he knew
nothing about. See Prieto v. State, 708 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 2d DCA
1998).

     The trial court summarily denied this claim, finding that
Newcomer failed to allege that he provided Michelle’s contact
information to counsel prior to trial. The court should have
provided Newcomer an opportunity to amend this specific claim.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the court to do so.

     In his third claim, Newcomer alleged counsel was ineffective
for advising him not to testify. Newcomer alleged that counsel’s
advice was that the benefit of Newcomer’s testimony did not
outweigh the damage the State could do with his prior record. He
asserted he would have testified about Feola’s prior request for
Newcomer to be an informant, Newcomer’s rejection of that
request, their sour relationship, and that Feola was looking for
leverage that day. He also alleged he would have testified that he
was not fleeing.

     “The first step in determining whether there was ineffective
assistance of counsel where defendant claims he would have
testified is to determine whether the defendant voluntarily agreed
with counsel not to take the stand.” Simon v. State, 47 So. 3d 883,
885 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Once that is established, then the trial
court must determine “whether counsel’s advice to defendant ‘even
if voluntarily followed, was nevertheless deficient because no
reasonable attorney would have discouraged [defendant] from
testifying.’” Id. (quoting Lott v. State, 931 So. 2d 807, 819 (Fla.
2006)). “Counsel may be ineffective in advising defendant not to
testify at trial, where the defendant’s testimony would have been

                                 5
the only evidence establishing a legally-recognized defense to the
charges.” Tafolla v. State, 162 So. 3d 1073, 1073 (Fla. 4th DCA
2015).

     Newcomer fails to demonstrate that counsel’s advice, even if
voluntarily followed, was nevertheless deficient because no
reasonable attorney would have discouraged Newcomer from
testifying. Had Newcomer testified about his prior relationship
with Feola, which involved being recruited to be a confidential
informant, it would not have provided a defense to the charges. At
best it would undermine the credibility of the officer, but it would
also affect the credibility of Newcomer, as the jury would be aware
he had a criminal history. Counsel’s performance was not deficient
for advising Newcomer not to testify because the potential
prejudice far outweighed the benefit. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court’s order denying this portion of claim three.

    Finally, also in claim three, Newcomer alleged that once
counsel knew Officer Feola was going to testify, counsel should
have advised him to take a 3 or 4.25 year plea offer, which he
asserted was still on the table. He alleged the court would have
accepted the plea and the plea was less than the sentence received.

     This claim is not refuted by the record. Newcomer alleged
counsel’s strategy was to “do nothing,” because counsel suspected
the officer would not appear for trial and the State would not be
able to prove its case. If this is true, there is nothing in the record
that explains why counsel did not advise Newcomer to accept the
plea when counsel learned the officer was present to testify at trial.
There is nothing attached that shows the plea offer had been
rescinded or was no longer on the table. Accordingly, as to this
portion of claim three, we reverse and remand for attachments of
the records or for an evidentiary hearing.

    For these reasons, we reverse the summary denial of
Newcomer’s rule 3.850 motion and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.

    REVERSED and REMANDED.

EDWARDS, C.J., and JAY, J., concur.

                                  6
          _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
           _____________________________

                       7