CARLOS YORIS, 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.
Carlos Yoris, serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion for relief. The court affirmed most of the lower court's decision but reversed and remanded on one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding that Yoris made a threshold showing that his counsel failed to adequately prepare to impeach a key state witness who allegedly testified falsely.
The court held that while the claim does not fit the traditional State v. Matera framework requiring proof that the state knowingly relied on perjured testimony, Yoris made a sufficient threshold showing of ineffective assistance of counsel. Summary denial was improper because Yoris showed counsel's preparation was inadequate, and this showing was not rebutted by the case files and records.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may arise where counsel has unjustifiably overlooked or ignored material, exculpatory evidence.
[2] A defendant must show that the state knowingly relied upon perjured testimony to obtain relief based on a witness's false testimony, unless a claim of ineffective assista…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may arise where counsel has unjustifiably overlooked or ignored material, exculpatory evidence.”
Establishes that ineffective assistance claims are not limited to cases of state perjury but include counsel's failure to present available exculpatory evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoris was convicted of first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence. Lucy Nieves was a crucial state witness in the case. Yoris alleged he had e…
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 Perjured Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
[*70] PER CURIAM.
Carlos Yoris appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The motion raises numerous issues. With the one exception discussed herein, all are without merit and we affirm the circuit court’s order denying relief with respect to all but this one issue. Further proceedings are required to resolve one claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and we remand for that purpose.
Yoris is serving a life sentence for first degree murder. It appears that Lucy Nieves was a crucial witness for the state. Yoris alleges that he had evidence that Nieves, out of fear of retribution from Yor-is’s codefendant, falsely implicated Yoris in the murder. Furthermore, Yoris alleges that counsel knew of, but failed to utilize, this evidence.
The trial court’s order states that relief is not available simply because a state witness may have testified falsely. Rather, the defendant must also show that the state knowingly relied upon the perjured téstimony. State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla.1972). Otherwise, “it [is] presumed that the accused [has] the ability to confront all witnesses, and to produce evidence in his behalf, such that the credibility of any witness [will] be fully examined before the trier of fact.” Linkous v. State, 585 So. 2d 486, 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
It is true that Yoris fails to accuse the state of suborning or condoning perjury. Nevertheless, we do not believe Mat-era controls the outcome of this case. A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may arise where counsel has unjustifiably overlooked or ignored material, exculpatory evidence. See, e.g., Mancera v. State, 600 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Prieto v. State, 573 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). The test of credibility we spoke of in Lin-kous presumes that counsel is adequately prepared to impeach or rebut the testimony of suspect witnesses. In the present case Yoris has made a threshold showing that counsel’s level of preparation was not adequate. Since that showing is not rebutted by evidence from the case files and records, summary denial of this portion of the motion was improper. After remand the trial court should re-examine the files and records in this case to determine whether anything therein conclusively refutes Yoris’s claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. If so the court may again deny the motion, attaching to its order the documentation relied upon in reaching that conclusion. If not, an evidentiary hearing may be necessary. Anyone aggrieved by the subsequent action of the trial court must file a timely notice to obtain further appellate review.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
FRANK, A.C.J., and PARKER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 627 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…s not involved in this case. Though encouraged to take Paulk’s statement and produce her at trial, counsel failed to do so. The record before us does not refute this claim, which, if true, could constitute ineffective assistance. Cf. Yoris v. State, 609 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (failure to use witness affidavit recanting testimony); Mancera v. State, 600 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (failure to explore possibility charges were falsified); Young v. State, 511 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (failure to inv…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Matera, 266 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1972)
- Prieto v. State, 573 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Mancera v. State, 600 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Linkous v. State, 585 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)