LAWRENCE C. MOORE, 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.
Defendant's appeal of denial of motion to vacate judgment based on ineffective assistance of counsel claim was affirmed because counsel's tactical decisions regarding alibi witnesses and defendant's testimony were sound and did not constitute ineffective assistance.
Counsel's decision not to call alibi witnesses or have the defendant testify, made for sound tactical reasons, does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
[1] Counsel's tactical decision to forego calling alibi witnesses and to advise a defendant not to testify, when made for sound strategic reasons, does not constitute ineffec…
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 intelligenceLawrence C. Moore was convicted at trial. His court-appointed attorney declined to call certain alibi witnesses and advised Moore not to testify, whic…
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 Tactical Decisions By Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Lawrence C. Moore appeals the denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. He claimed below that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his court-appointed attorney at trial because the said attorney failed to call certain alibi witnesses, failed to call the defendant himself as a witness, and committed sundry other errors. The trial court conducted a full evidentiary hearing and denied the motion.
We have carefully examined the’ briefs and record in this case and conclude that no showing of ineffective assistance of counsel was made in this cause. Counsel declined to call the alibi defense witnesses for sound tactical reasons. Counsel also had a sound basis for advising the defendant not to testify at trial, which advice the defendant voluntarily followed. We recognize that the defendant gave contrary testimony at the hearing below, but the trial court was privileged to reject this testimony in favor of the conflicting testimony of counsel. Finally, the other claimed errors of counsel do not, in our view, rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Morgan v. State (Fla.1984) (case no. 63,679, opinion filed September 11, 1984) [9 FLW 428]; Adams v. State, 456 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1984); Shriner v. State, 452 So. 2d 929 (Fla.1984); Jackson v. State, 452 So. 2d 533 (Fla.1984); Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lamb v. State, 202 So. 3d 118 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…e of this alleged promise. See Shere v. State, 742 So. 2d 215, 218 n. 8 (Fla.1999) (stating that the role of the trial judge in a post-conviction motion evidentiary hearing is to make credibility determinations and findings of fact); Moore v. State, 458 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (recognizing that at a rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing the trial court is entitled to reject the defendant’s testimony in favor of the conflicting testimony of trial counsel).…
-
Santiago v. State, 252 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…antiago that he could not receive a prison sentence in excess of eighteen months, the court is certainly free to find counsel's testimony more credible than the conflicting testimony from Santiago and thereafter deny the motion. See Moore v. State , 458 So. 2d 61, 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (recognizing that at a rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing, the trial court is entitled to reject the defendant's testimony in favor of the conflicting testimony of trial counsel).…
-
Suarez v. State, 502 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…he advice not to testify. This being so, the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense by testifying in his own behalf was not, as urged, abridged in this case. See Cutter v. State, 460 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Moore v. State, 458 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Thomas v. State, 383 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Jackson v. State, 452 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1984)
- Adams v. State, 456 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1984)
- Shriner v. State, 452 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1984)