JAMES LEE BARNES, 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.
The court held that the allegations in the petition to vacate were refuted by the record, and therefore, the trial court's summary denial of the motion was proper.
[1] A motion to vacate a conviction under F.R.Cr.P. …
[2] Failure to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense can constitute reversible error if raised on direct appeal.
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 intelligenceAppellant sought to vacate his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging counsel failed to object to the trial court's failure t…
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 Motion To Vacate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a summary denial of a motion to vacate, pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 3.850.
The petition alleged incompetence of counsel, as evidenced by trial counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s failure to charge the jury as to the crimes of assault with intent to commit robbery and robbery with a weapon as lesser offenses to the charges of robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, when the trial court had in fact agreed to give said charges.
Clearly, the failure to instruct on the lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit robbery would constitute reversible error under the holding in Lomax v. State, 345 So. 2d 719 (Fla.1977), if raised on direct appeal. However, in the instant case, that point is not before us in that posture. The claim here is that counsel was ineffective because of a failure to object to the failure to charge the jury on this point. In order to determine competency of counsel based upon his alleged failure to act, it is necessary to look at the circumstances surrounding that alleged failure.
In examining the entire jury charge, it clearly appears that the trial court did, in fact, charge the jury as to the crime of robbery with a weapon. As to the failure of the trial court to charge the jury on the crime of assault with intent to commit robbery, the record shows that the trial court charged the jury as to aggravated assault, a facet thereof being assault with intent to commit robbery. Therefore, considering the charges as a whole, the appellant has failed to show wherein he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to act which must be shown to sustain the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel. Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1980).
The allegations of appellant’s petition to vacate being refuted on the face of the record, the order of the trial court summarily denying the motion be and it is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Meeks v. State, 382 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1980)
- Lomax v. State, 345 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1977)