ROLAND TERRY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Roland Terry sought habeas corpus relief alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his original appeal of his armed robbery and kidnapping conviction. The court denied relief, finding that Terry failed to meet the established burden of proving specific deficiencies in counsel's performance that prejudiced the outcome.
The court held that Terry failed to meet his burden under the Knight standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims. Specifically, Terry did not adequately detail the specific defects to which the omitted cases would have pointed, demonstrate that the omission was substantially and seriously below competent counsel performance, or show that the omission prejudiced him by affecting the outcome rather than constituting harmless error.
[1] A claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is properly presented by petition for writ of habeas corpus.
[2] A petitioner seeking relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must detail the specific omission or overt act upon which the claim is based.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The defendant has the burden to show that this specific omission or overt act was a substantial and serious deficiency measurably below that of competent counsel. To be 'below average' is not enough, for that is self evidently the case half the time.”
Establishes the threshold for proving ineffective assistance of counsel—mere below-average performance is insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTerry was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Terry subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition c…
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 To Defendant cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
Petitioner seeks relief by way of habeas corpus from an earlier affirmance of his conviction for armed robbery and kidnapping, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his original appeal to the court.1 We deny the requested relief.
A claim for relief based on alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is properly presented to this court by way of petition for habeas corpus. Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981). In Knight, the Supreme Court laid down these principles upon which such petition must he based:
(1) The specific omission or overt act upon which the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is based must be detailed in the appropriate pleading.
(2) The defendant has the burden to show that this specific omission or overt act was a substantial and serious deficiency measurably below that of competent counsel. To be ‘below average’ is not enough, for that is self evidently the case half the time.
(3) The defendant has the burden to show that this specific, serious deficiency, when considered under the circumstances of the individual case, was substantial enough to demonstrate a prejudice to the defendant to the extent that there is a likelihood that the deficient conduct affected the outcome of the court proceedings. In the case of appellate counsel, this means the deficiency must concern an issue which is error affecting the outcome, not simply harmless error. (4) The State must have an opportunity to rebut by showing beyond a reasonable doubt no prejudice in fact.
Petitioner has not complied with the first three principles, so there is no need for the State to rebut. Petitioner alleges that there were cases which would have been pertinent which his appellate counsel did not cite, but he does not demonstrate: (1) the specific defect or omission in the proceedings to which these cases would point; (2) how and why the omission to cite these cases was a substantial and serious deficiency measurably below that of competent counsel; and (3) that such omission was substantial enough to demonstrate prejudice to petitioner of such magnitude as to constitute reversible, not harmless error. Until a petitioner meets his initial burden, there is nothing for the State to rebut, nor can we grant relief.
The petition for habeas corpus is DENIED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and COW-ART, JJ., concur. . Terry v. State, 397 So. 2d 1040 (Fla.5th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Purwin v. Louie L. Wainwright, 436 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…COBB, Judge. The petitioner, Stephen Walter Purwin, seeks a writ of habeas corpus to secure a belated appeal, claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in his original appeal. See Terry v. State, 404 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Ross v. State, 287 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Wright v. State, 269 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). The Florida Supreme Court articulated the standards applicable to a review of a claim that appellate counsel was ineffective i…
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Terry v. State, 397 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)