ALBERT JAMES SOREY, 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 defendant did not establish ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel's actions were reasonable and not prejudicial.
Defendant Sorey appealed the denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence, claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The claims involv…
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 Closing Argument cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Following a hearing on the issue of the effectiveness of defendant Sorey’s trial counsel, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Sorey appeals.
We find no merit in defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on his attorney’s failure to file a motion to suppress fingerprint standards and on his failure to object to the prosecutor’s closing argument comment on defend ant’s silence. In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel,* defendant must establish that counsel’s performance was unreasonable under the circumstances of the case and that counsel’s deficiencies prejudiced him. Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1984); Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981). From the record before us, it appears that defense counsel’s failure to move to suppress fingerprint standards was not unreasonable under the circumstances since the state could have obtained this evidence through discovery. In addition, the record indicates that the prosecutor’s statement during closing argument constituted a fair response to defense counsel’s comments rather than an impermissible comment on defendant’s silence. Furthermore, there is no showing that counsel’s actions prejudiced defendant Sorey.
For these reasons, we affirm the order denying defendant’s Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence pursuant to rule 3.850.
Affirmed.
*
Sorey's convictions were appealed and affirmed in Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2006)…ll into the category of an “invited response’.’ by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject. See Barwick v. State, 660 So. 2d 685, 694 (Fla.1995); Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d 154, 160 (Fla.1986); see also Sorey v. State, 463 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim for failure to object to prosecutor’s closing argument which constituted a fair response to defense counsel’s comments). Thus, we agree with the trial court that Walls is not entitled to rel…
-
Isidore v. State, 181 So. 3d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…on the merits, post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to file motion to suppress); Zanchez v. State, 84 So. 3d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (same); Ramos v. State, 559 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (same); Sorey v. State, 463 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same). Accordingly, we reverse the denial of claims two and three, and remand for further proceedings. With regard to all other claims, we affirm without further discussion. [*1228] Affirmed in part; reversed in- part; and rema…
Authorities Cited
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)
- Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1984)
- Sorey v. State, 419 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)