Chamberlain v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2010
JOHN JACOB CHAMBERLAIN,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D08-2864
[ March 3, 2010 ]
PER CURIAM.
John Jacob Chamberlain, the defendant below, appeals two orders
summarily denying his amended motion for post-conviction relief.
By way of background, the defendant originally filed his motion for
post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851
because h e was sentenced to death.
Based on newly discovered
evidence, the trial court subsequently mitigated the defendant’s sentence
from death to life. The state and the defendant agreed and stipulated
that, going forward, the defendant would proceed under Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.850.
The defendant asserts seven claims on appeal to this court. First, he
argues that the trial court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing
on his claim of newly discovered evidence of alleged juror misconduct
and erred in denying his motion to interview the jurors (“Issue I”).
Second, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in summarily
denying four separate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: (a) the
alleged failure to subpoena Richard Button, and the failure to obtain
information regarding alleged witness collusion a n d false testimony
(“Issue II-A”); (b) the failure to object to alleged improper, irrelevant, and
misleading testimony or comments which occurred over the course of the
trial (“Issue II-B”); (c) the mishandling of Donna Garrett’s alleged faulty
identification of the defendant and subsequent testimony (“Issue II-C”);
and (d) the alleged failure to move for change of venue and the alleged
failure to question panel members regarding their knowledge of the case
(“Issue II-D”). Third, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in
denying his claim that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to
his trial counsel’s alleged conflict of interest (“Issue III”). Finally, the
defendant argues that the trial court misapplied Florida Rule of Criminal
Procedure 3.852 when reviewing claimed exemptions to the disclosure of
public records asserted by law enforcement (“Issue IV”).
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction
motion unless: (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively
show that the defendant is not entitled to any relief; or (2) the motion or
a particular claim is legally insufficient. Williamson v. State, 994 So. 2d
1000, 1006 (Fla. 2008) (quoting Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061
(Fla. 2000)); Terrell v. State, 9 So. 3d 1284, 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
(citing Phillips v. State, 894 So. 2d 28, 37 (Fla. 2004)). The trial court
may summarily deny a Rule 3.850 motion when the motion lacks
sufficient factual allegations, or where alleged facts do not render the
judgment vulnerable to collateral attack. Robinson v. State, 913 So. 2d
514, 520 (Fla. 2005). “If the allegations are facially sufficient, the trial
court ‘must either conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach to its order
excerpts from the record that conclusively disprove the appellant’s
claim.’” Ajuste v. State, 12 So. 3d 305, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citation
omitted).
In support of its denial of the claims set forth in Issues I, II-A, II-D,
and III, the trial court referenced the attachment of Exhibits “A” through
“G,” which appear to be several volumes of transcripts from the trial and
other portions of the trial record. These exhibits, however, were not
actually attached to the trial court’s order and the trial court clerk
confirmed that it transmitted the record in its entirety. See, e.g.,
Williams v. State, 4 So. 3d 1292, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Fla. R. App.
P. 9.141(b)(2)(A). Therefore, the trial court order does not comply with
Rule 3.850(d) as to these claims.1 Taylor v. State, 583 So. 2d 823 (Fla.
4th DCA 1991) (reversal and remand appropriate where some records
were referred to in the order, but they were not attached as required by
Rule 3.850); see also Williams, 4 So. 3d at 1292. On remand, we direct
the trial court to attach the portions of the record referenced in its order
Even if this court analyzed the issue under Rule 3.851, we note that Rule
3.851(f)(5)(D) requires the trial court to make detailed findings of fact and
conclusions of law with respect to each claim, and attach or reference “such
portions of the record as are necessary to allow for meaningful appellate review.”
(emphasis added.) Here, the records were not referenced in such a way as to
allow for meaningful appellate review in their absence.
1
2
as to Issues I, II-A, II-D, and III or to conduct an evidentiary hearing on
these claims, if necessary.
We also conclude without further discussion that the defendant’s
remaining claims (Issues II-B, II-C, and IV) are without merit.
Affirmed in part, Reversed and Remanded in part.
STEVENSON, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
*
*
*
Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for
the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Lucy Chernow Brown,
Judge; L.T. Case No. 98-12923 CFB02.
Neal A. Dupree, Regional Counsel, and Suzanne Myers Keffer, Chief
Assistant CCRC, Office of the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel Southern Region, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
John Jacob Chamberlain, Century, Pro Se.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lisa-Marie Lerner,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
