WILLIE C. JONES, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel.
Appellant sought to vacate a judgment, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to assign as error the denial of a motion for judg…
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 Strickland Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. The trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion to vacate due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The appellant has failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the results of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
The trial court found counsel’s neglect, in failing to assign as error the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, below the standard of performance expected of a competent attorney. However, we agree with the court’s finding, according to the test set out in Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1981), that the defendant failed to show that this deficiency caused him prejudice to the extent that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.
Additionally, there was no error in allowing the expert testimony with respect to the omitted assignment of error. We therefore concur in the conclusions of the trial court and affirm.
DOWNEY, WALDEN and STONE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 1981)