DANIEL LAMAR WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Daniel Lamar Williams appealed a trial court's summary denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, arguing his trial counsel failed to timely object when the State's expert witness read from a medical publication. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the trial court erred by reconsidering whether counsel's conduct fell below the professional standard, which had already been decided adversely to the State on direct appeal.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by reconsidering whether counsel's conduct fell below the professional standard (which had already been determined on direct appeal) and failed to attach record portions conclusively refuting Williams's claim of prejudice. On remand, the trial court must either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the prejudice claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may be established by showing that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.
[2] When an appellate court has previously determined that a trial court would have erred in overruling an objection, the law of the case doctrine dictates that the trial cou…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“had trial counsel raised a timely and specific objection to the expert witness reading from a medical publication during direct examination, the trial court would have erred in overruling the objection”
Establishes that counsel's failure to object fell below the professional standard, which was already determined on direct appeal and could not be revisited on remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt trial, the State's expert witness read from a medical publication during direct examination. Trial counsel failed to timely and specifically object…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudice Prong Of Ineffective Assistance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Daniel Lamar Williams, challenges the trial court’s order summarily denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely and properly object when the State’s expert witness read from a medical publication during direct examination. Because the record does not conclusively refute Appellant’s claim that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s deficiency in failing to make a timely and specific objection, we reverse and remand.
On Appellant’s direct appeal, we determined that had trial counsel raised a timely and specific objection to the expert witness reading from a medical publication during direct examination, the trial court would have erred in overruling the objection. See Williams v. State, 935 So. 2d 638, 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Thereafter, in Williams v. State, 970 So. 2d 881, 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), we reversed in part the order summarily denying Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to make such an objection, determining that the trial court failed to attach portions of the record to support its finding that Appellant was not prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object. On remand, the trial court again denied Appellant’s motion, finding that Appellant failed to establish that trial counsel’s actions fell below the professional standard expected and that the results of the trial would have been different but for counsel’s actions. This appeal followed.
The trial court’s finding that counsel’s actions did not fall below the professional standard expected is in conflict with our determination in Williams, 935 So. 2d at 638, that the trial court would have erred in allowing the expert witness to read from a publication during direct examination had counsel timely and specifically objected to such. See State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 289-90 (Fla.2003) (noting that the law of the case doctrine requires that questions of law decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and the trial court through all subsequent stages of the proceedings).
Given our determination on direct appeal, the only focus on remand from Appellant’s initial postconviction relief appeal should have been whether he was prejudiced by counsel’s deficiency. Although the trial court found that Appellant failed to establish prejudice, it did not attach portions of the record that conclusively refuted Appellant’s claim of prejudice.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the trial court’s order and REMAND with instructions either to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Appellant’s claim of prejudice or to hold an evidentiary hearing.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Antoine L. McBRIDE, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003)
- Williams v. State, 935 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Williams v. State, 970 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)