CALVIN BERNARD JOHNSON, 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.
Calvin Johnson appealed the summary denial of his postconviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel following his conviction for attempted murder of six undercover police officers. The court affirmed the denial regarding his first claim but reversed and remanded regarding three related claims involving the introduction of his prior criminal history without adequate objection by counsel.
The court affirmed the denial of relief regarding the first claim about the motion for judgment of acquittal but reversed and remanded regarding the three related claims involving prior criminal history evidence, finding the claims raised a colorable question of ineffective assistance that required further proceedings rather than summary denial.
[1] A motion for postconviction relief may be affirmed in part and reversed in part.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's failure to object to the introduction of evidence of prior criminal history, which arguably establishes a…
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“If the facts related by Johnson are true, it is possible that counsel did provide ineffective assistance.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing postconviction claims on appeal - a colorable question of ineffective assistance requires further proceedings rather than summary denial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson was convicted of attempted murder of six undercover police officers during what began as a drug deal that became violent when Johnson suspecte…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.020(G) cases and more on FLexlaw
[*89] PER CURIAM.
Calvin Johnson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconvietion relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Johnson was convicted of the attempted murder of six undercover police officers. The facts indicate a drug deal which suddenly became violent after appellant began to suspect would-be customers of being police. Johnson now maintains that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance. The motion cites four separate omissions. The first claim, that counsel’s motion for judgment of acquittal was somehow deficient, is without merit. We affirm the denial of relief as to that claim.
The three remaining claims all involve essentially the same problem. According to Johnson, at various points in the trial evidence of his prior criminal history was introduced. This allegedly occurred without objection by counsel, and even through counsel’s own cross-examination of one of the officers. The prior offenses included both drug-related crimes and crimes of violence, arguably establishing appellant’s propensity for the sort of criminal behavior for which he was on trial. In its response to the motion, which the trial court adopted in the order under review, the state suggested this portion of the motion was facially insufficient and did not demonstrate any likelihood that counsel’s performance, “even if arguably deficient,” prejudiced the outcome of the case. Given the limited scope of our review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), we cannot agree. If the facts related by Johnson are true, it is possible that counsel did provide ineffective assistance. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 447 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA1984). Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings regarding these three interrelated claims.
After remand the trial court should reexamine the files and records in this case to determine whether anything therein conclusively refutes the claims discussed in the foregoing paragraph. If so, the court may again deny the motion, attaching to its order the documentation upon which it has relied. Otherwise an evidentiary hearing may be necessary.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.