DAVID LEGGETT
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2024-12-18
No. 2023-0305
2024 FL 14118 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2024) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Synopsis

David Leggett appealed his conviction, raising claims regarding newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other trial errors. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, affirmed the conviction, applying established standards requiring that newly discovered evidence be unknown at trial and likely to produce acquittal, and that ineffective assistance claims be evaluated under the Strickland two-prong test.

Holding

The court affirmed the conviction, applying the standard that newly discovered evidence must have been unknown at trial and must be of such nature as to probably produce acquittal on retrial; that testimony from newly discovered witnesses is untrustworthy when rife with inconsistencies; and that a defendant's express agreement to counsel's strategic decisions during colloquy is fatal to ineffective assistance claims.

Headnotes

[1] An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of evidence when the tr…

[2] Newly discovered evidence must be unknown to the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or counsel could not have…

Previewing 2 of 6 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
Key Quotes

“So long as the [trial court's] decisions are supported by competent, substantial evidence, this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact and, likewise, on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence.”

Establishes the standard of review for appellate courts reviewing trial court factual findings and credibility determinations.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

The opinion does not detail specific facts beyond references to Leggett's trial, his counsel's strategic decisions regarding witness testimony, colloq…

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.

Topics
Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Standard Standard Of Review On Appeal Newly Discovered Evidence Standard Preservation Of Issues For Appeal

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Standard cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D23-0305 Lower Tribunal No. F10-27196

David Leggett, Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Tanya Brinkley, Judge.

Debra Kay Cohen, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Arbelaez v. State, 898 So. 2d 25, 32 (Fla. 2005) (“So long as the [trial court's] decisions are supported by competent, substantial evidence, this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact and, likewise, on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence.” (citation omitted) (insertion in original)); Melendez v. State, 718 So. 2d 746, 747-48 (Fla. 1998) (same); Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512, 521 (Fla. 1998) (finding that "[t]wo requirements must be met for a conviction to be set aside based on newly discovered evidence[:] First, . . . the evidence 'must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known [of it] by the use of due diligence.' Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial." (internal citation omitted) (insertion in original)); Schofield v. State, 311 So. 3d 918, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (affirming that new evidence is “unlikely to produce an acquittal on retrial” if it is not credible); State v. Riechmann, 777 So. 2d 342, 360 (Fla. 2000) (stating that testimony of newly discovered witnesses is untrustworthy when the witnesses' statements are “rife with inconsistencies' with [d]efendant's own testimony at trial"); Alcorn v. State,121 So. 3d 419, 422 (Fla. 2013) (providing the test to determine whether counsel's performance was

3

Footnotes
2 unreasonable when a plea agreement has been offered by the state is the defendant must prove that “counsel's performance was deficient,” and the defendant must demonstrate that the “deficient performance prejudiced [the defendant]"); Mendoza v. State, 81 So. 3d 579, 580-81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding that upon defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel after his attorney failed to call certain witnesses at trial, where defendant was colloquied by the trial court and when asked if he agreed with his counsel's decision not to call other witnesses, the defendant affirmatively agreed with his counsel's strategy, this Court stated defendant's express agreement to his attorney's decision during colloquy was "fatal to his claim of ineffective assistance counsel”); Ritchie v. State, 344 So. 3d 369, 378 (Fla. 2002) (stating that to be preserved for review, “the issue or legal argument must be raised and ruled on by the trial court" (citation omitted) (emphasis in original)).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Downs (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
    …known to the trial court, the defendant, or counsel at the time of trial, and it could not have been known through diligence, and (2) that the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Schofield v. State, 311 So. 3d 918, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Downs raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as to the hallway plea offer in an earlier postconviction motion. "[R]ule 3.850 permits a court to dismiss a second or successive postconviction motion if the motion…
  • State v. Downs (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
    …known to the trial court, the defendant, or counsel at the time of trial, and it could not have been known through diligence, and (2) that the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Schofield v. State, 311 So. 3d 918, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Downs raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as to the hallway plea offer in an earlier postconviction motion. "[R]ule 3.850 permits a court to dismiss a second or successive postconviction motion if the motion…
  • State v. Downs, Esq. (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)
    …t known to the trial court, the defendant, or counsel at the time of trial, and it could not have been known through diligence, and (2) that the evidence is of such a nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Schofield v. State, 311 So. 3d 918, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020). Downs raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as to the hallway plea offer in an earlier postconviction motion. "[R]ule 3.850 permits a court to dismiss a second or successive postconviction motion if the motion ra…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw