Court Opinion

ID: 9959758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:03:03.685219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:52.423587
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                       Case No. 5D22-2281
                 LT Case No. 2017-CF-000351-A
                 _____________________________

JEROME KEITH LAFORTUNE,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County.
Donna L. McIntosh, Judge.

Paula C. Coffman, of Law Office of Paula Coffman, Orlando, for
Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh
Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

                          April 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.

    Jerome Keith Lafortune appeals from the final order
summarily denying Grounds 1 and 3 of his motion for
postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.850. Because the portions of the record attached to the
postconviction court’s order do not conclusively refute Lafortune’s
claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to
object to the admission of a photograph (Ground 3), we reverse the
order to the extent that claim was summarily denied and remand
for further proceedings.

     To begin, the postconviction court summarily denied Grounds
1 and 3 because Lafortune had raised the same claims in an
amended motion for new trial, claims that “could have or should
have” been raised on direct appeal. This was error. Lafortune’s
conviction was affirmed without opinion in his direct appeal,* but
that does not preclude him from raising the ineffective assistance
of counsel claims in a postconviction motion. See Blandin v. State,
128 So. 3d 235, 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (noting that “when an
ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised on direct appeal
and the appellant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed without
a written opinion, the law of the case does not establish that this
court rejected the claim on the merits”).

    The reason for generally allowing ineffective assistance of
counsel claims in postconviction proceedings was explained by
Judge Altenbernd in Corzo v. State:

              Because of the strict rules limiting claims
         for ineffective assistance of counsel on direct
         appeal, the appellate courts typically reject the
         issue as both premature and requiring evidence
         beyond the appellate record. Accordingly, unless
         a direct appeal is affirmed with a written
         opinion that expressly addresses the issue of
         ineffective assistance of counsel, an affirmance
         on direct appeal should rarely, if ever, be treated
         as a procedural bar to a claim for ineffective
         assistance of counsel on a postconviction motion.

806 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Here, nothing procedurally
precluded Lafortune from asserting Grounds 1 and 3 in the
postconviction context; this court’s affirmance without opinion

    * Lafortune v. State, 277 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

                                 2
does not bar consideration of those claims in postconviction
proceedings.

     In summarily denying Ground 1 of Lafortune’s postconviction
motion, the postconviction court addressed the merits of his claim
for relief and attached the portions of the record which conclusively
demonstrate that Lafortune is not entitled to relief. See Fla. R.
Crim. P. 3.850(f)(4). Affirmance is in order on this ground.

    The merits of Ground 3, however, were not addressed.
Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court’s order summarily
denying relief on Ground 1 but reverse the order as to Ground 3
and remand for the postconviction court to hold an evidentiary
hearing or attach portions of the record that conclusively show that
Lafortune is not entitled to relief. Lafortune’s cumulative error
argument in this appeal should be addressed after the
postconviction court’s review of Ground 3.

    AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED in part.

EDWARDS, C.J., and MAKAR and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

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

                                 3