PHILLIP DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Appellant Davis challenged his conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed the conviction, applying the two-prong Strickland test requiring the defendant to show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
The court affirmed Davis's conviction, finding that Davis failed to satisfy the requirements of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
[1] A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must establish both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice to the defense; failure to prove eithe…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient... Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
Establishes the foundational two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims that must be satisfied
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not specify detailed facts about the underlying crime or conviction. The case appears to involve a challenge to the adequacy of couns…
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 Adversarial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
*97Affirmed. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ("A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings , it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable." (emphasis added)); Connolly v. State, 172 So.3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (finding no fundamental error where the imperfection of the information did not mislead the defendant as he still had notice of the appropriate statute alleged to be violated); Mesa v. State, 632 So.2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (finding no error despite failure to allege an essential element of the crime charge where "the charging document references the specific section of the criminal code which the defendant is charged with violating"); cf. Knight v. State, 253 So.3d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (finding error where the charging instrument failed to allege statute violated and essential elements of the crime).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Connolly v. State, 172 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Mesa v. State, 632 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Knight v. State, 253 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)