LEROY G. HARLEY, 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.
Court affirmed summary denial of postconviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel claims but reversed and remanded on the single issue of whether trial counsel's failure to investigate alibi witnesses was a tactical decision or ineffective assistance.
Trial counsel's failure to investigate alibi witnesses may constitute ineffective assistance and requires an evidentiary hearing rather than summary dismissal based on a conclusory "tactical decision" finding.
[1] A trial court's finding that counsel's failure to present alibi witnesses was a tactical decision is generally inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing at which couns…
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 intelligence“However, such a finding generally is inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing. Instead, counsel should be heard from, and if necessary cross-examined, as to whether a decision truly was "tactical."”
Court explaining why summary denial based on tactical decision rationale was improper without hearing from counsel
Harley, serving an enhanced sentence for strong-arm robbery, filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, incl…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
LeRoy Harley appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Harley, who is serving an enhanced sentence for strong-arm robbery, contends that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance. A host of grievances is included in the motion, ranging from the color-able to the absurd. Apart from the single exception discussed below, we conclude that Harley’s motion was appropriate for summary denial, and affirm the order of the circuit court. The sole claim meriting further consideration is Harley’s allegation that trial counsel was given the name of one or more alibi witnesses, but failed to investigate or present this valid defense. If true, this could constitute ineffective assistance. Young v. State, 511 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The trial court’s order states that it was a “tactical decision” not to use alibi witnesses. Certainly defense counsel is entitled to broad discretion regarding trial strategy. However, such a finding generally is inappropriate without an evidentiary hearing. Instead, counsel should be heard from, and if necessary cross-examined, as to whether a decision truly was “tactical.” See Dauer v. State, 570 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). We therefore remand for further proceedings regarding this one issue.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
FRANK, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 642 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…as “tactical”); Comfort v. State, 597 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (concluding that counsel had legitimate tactical reasons for not calling alibi witness is rarely an appropriate basis for summary denial of post-conviction relief); Harley v. State, 594 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (summary denial of ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsel’s “tactical” decisions is generally inappropriate); Dauer v. State, 570 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (determination whether trial counsel’s actions were tacti…
-
Robinson v. State, 637 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…el was tactical is generally inappropriate without an evidentia-ry hearing. Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Gordon v. State, 608 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Davis v. State, 608 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Harley v. State, 594 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Dauer v. State, 570 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Appellant further asserts that the trial court improperly imposed the maximum penalty of 30 years under the habitual offender statute based, in part, on the prosecutor’s stateme…
-
Collins v. State, 671 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…portions of the record attached by the trial court. The omission may have been error on the part of the attorney or it may have been trial strategy. Matters of trial strategy should not be determined without an evidentiary hearing. Harley v. State, 594 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Oppenheimer v. State, 659 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Appellant must seek review of any subsequent order of the trial court within thirty days. Reversed and remanded. BLUE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur. SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., dis…
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
- Dauer v. State, 570 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Young v. State, 511 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)