Joshua Walker v. State
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9130, 2017 WL 2730087, 223 So. 3d 388 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable and cannot be summarily denied when counsel fails to move to suppress an out-of-court photo lineup that was unnecessarily suggestive because the defendant was the only individual depicted with a distinctive physical characteristic that the victim used for identification.
Facts:
- An individual was the victim of several crimes, including attempted murder and robbery.
- The victim observed the assailant in the backseat of his car through the rearview mirror.
- The victim later stated he recognized the assailant because of the 'blotches on the face.'
- Police created a photo lineup for the victim to view.
- In the photo lineup, Joshua Walker was the only individual depicted with extensive facial scarring or a blotchy complexion.
- The victim identified Walker from this photo lineup.
- A wallet containing Walker's identification was also found on the ground at the crime scene.
Procedural Posture:
- Joshua Walker was convicted of numerous offenses, including attempted first-degree murder, in a Florida trial court.
- Walker's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal by the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- Walker filed a rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief in the trial court, alleging three grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The postconviction court (the trial court) summarily denied the motion on all grounds.
- Walker, as the appellant, appealed the summary denial to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, with the State as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does trial counsel's failure to move to suppress an out-of-court photo lineup, in which the defendant was the only individual with extensive facial scarring that the victim used for identification, constitute a sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to survive a summary denial and warrant an evidentiary hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Cohen, C.J.
Yes. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to challenge an unnecessarily suggestive photo lineup has merit and cannot be summarily denied without records that conclusively refute the claim. The court applied the two-part test for suppressing an identification: 1) whether the procedure was unnecessarily suggestive, and 2) whether it created a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. The court found the lineup was unnecessarily suggestive because Walker was the only person with the distinct facial scarring that the victim identified as a key feature. The court rejected the lower court's reasoning that the police database limitations excused the suggestiveness, stating that difficulty in creating a fair lineup does not make a suggestive one permissible. Given that the victim's view was brief and through a rearview mirror, the court concluded the suggestive procedure likely gave rise to a substantial likelihood of misidentification. The court also reversed the summary denial of Walker's claim that counsel provided affirmative misadvice about testifying. However, it affirmed the denial of the claim regarding the failure to suppress the wallet, as the wallet's presence at the scene was relevant evidence, and a motion to suppress would have been meritless.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent requirements for creating non-suggestive identification procedures and the duties of defense counsel to challenge them. It clarifies that practical difficulties, such as software limitations, do not excuse law enforcement from conducting a fundamentally fair photo lineup. The ruling also underscores the procedural standard for postconviction relief, establishing that a defendant's plausible, unrefuted claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must proceed to an evidentiary hearing rather than be summarily dismissed. This holding protects defendants from convictions based on potentially flawed identifications and holds the justice system accountable for both police procedures and the performance of defense counsel.
