LEAMON 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.
Williams appealed a denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because his public defender allegedly failed to contact his parents as potential witnesses before withdrawing from representation at Williams' request. The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, finding the claim lacked merit and could have been raised on direct appeal.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the 3.850 motion, holding that the ineffective assistance claim lacked merit because Williams failed to specify what exonerating testimony his parents might have provided, the partial trial transcript refuted the general allegation of incompetent pre-trial representation, and there was no showing that Williams was denied the opportunity to call his parents or other witnesses at trial.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, based on counsel's alleged failure to contact potential witnesses, may be raised in a post-conviction relief motion.
[2] A post-conviction relief motion must contain specific allegations of exonerating testimony to be legally sufficient.
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 public defender stood by to assist Williams, at request of the trial court, while Williams conducted his own defense at his own request.”
Establishes the factual context that Williams voluntarily chose to represent himself with standby counsel available.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Before trial, Williams requested that his public defender, Parla-pia…
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 Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Chief Judge.
Williams appeals from the trial court’s order denying him post-judgment relief, Fla. R. Cr. P. 3.850, from his conviction for murder in the first degree and life sentence. Williams’ motion complained that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that Eighth Circuit Public Defender Parla-piano, who withdrew from the representation at trial on request by Williams, and by leave of court, allegedly failed to contact Williams’ parents as potential witnesses. The public defender stood by to assist Williams, at request of the trial court, while Williams conducted his own defense at his own request.
In denying the 3.850 motion the trial court erroneously held that the claim of ineffective counsel could and should have been raised on Williams' direct appeal, in which this Court affirmed the conviction. See State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974) and Roberts v. State, 402 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Yet the court properly denied the motion, both because it lacks specific allegations of the exonerating testimony Williams intimates his parents might have given and because the partial trial transcript exhibited with the motion details the circumstances under which the public defender withdrew and convincingly refutes the general allegation of pre-trial incompetent representation by counsel. As for Williams’ allegation that counsel had not “contacted” his parents, Williams’ pretrial complaint to that effect was no more specific than his 3.850 motion. Counsel upon withdrawing cited Williams’ refusal to discuss with him possible defenses, and Williams, though given an opportunity to do so, did not deny counsel’s recital of his diligent pre-trial representation. There is no claim that Williams was denied the opportunity at trial to call his parents or any other exculpatory witness. The 3.850 motion was without merit, and the trial court’s order is
AFFIRMED.
LARRY G. SMITH and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Padron v. State, 553 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…upon the finding that appellant’s motion was insufficient on its face. Robinson v. State, 516 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Finney v. State, 502 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Tedder v. State, 495 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Williams v. State, 418 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Roberts v. State, 402 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)