TIMOTHY THOMAS, 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 trial court erred in granting an evidentiary hearing on only one of seven grounds for post-conviction relief.
[1] A defendant must demonstrate both deficient performance by counsel and a reasonable probability of a different outcome to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel…
[2] The determination of whether deficient performance affected the outcome of a trial is a mixed question of law and fact.
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 intelligenceTimothy Thomas appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel on seven grounds. T…
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 Prima Facie Showing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Timothy Thomas appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under rule 3.850. His motion listed seven grounds for relief. The focus was ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court granted an evidentiary hearing, but only as to one of the grounds raised by Thomas. Under the circumstances present here this was error and we reverse.
It is by now commonplace that the effectiveness of trial counsel is measured from two perspectives. In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant must demonstrate both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different absent the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 690 (1984); see also Ferguson v. State, 593 So. 2d 508, 510 (Fla.1992).
It is also well established that a determination whether the deficient performance affected the outcome of the trial is a mixed question of law and fact. See, e.g., Cave v. Singletary, 971 F. 2d 1513, 1516-17 (11th Cir.1992) (determination whether defendant received adequate assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact); Duest v. Singletary, 967 F. 2d 472, 476 (11th Cir.1992) (ineffective assistance of counsel claim presents a mixed question of law and fact and is therefore subject to de novo review), pet. for cert, filed, No. 92-1163 (U.S. Jan. 4, 1993).
The record in this case amply demonstrates that Thomas made a primae facie showing of ineffectiveness. He is thus entitled to an evidentiary hearing as to whether the reliability of his trial result was thereby compromised.
We reverse and remand for a full evidentiary hearing at which appellant shall be entitled to produce evidence on each of the seven grounds raised in his motion, including the failure to file a motion to suppress previously argued.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY and DELL, JJ„ and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowman v. State, 748 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…t he was prejudiced by these omissions. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact and is therefore subject to de novo [*1084] review on appeal. See Rose v. State, 675 So. 2d 567, 571 (Fla.1996); Thomas v. State, 616 So. 2d 1150, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). However, where the trial court makes findings of fact after an evidentiary-hearing on a 3.850 motion, the appellate court cannot substitute its own factual findings for those of the trial court. See Smith v. State, 697 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Alphonso Cave v. Singletary, 971 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1992)
- Ferguson v. State, 593 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1992)
- Duest v. Singletary, 967 F.2d 472 (11th Cir. 1992)