MARIO RADAMES VAZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contemporaneous Objection Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Adams v. State, 585 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), we held that the trial court’s allowance of fifteen minutes for closing argument, following a two-day trial, was “simply not enough and deprived appellant of a fair trial.” Adams’s attorney preserved the error for review by a specific and contemporaneous objection to the time limitation. Vaz, who was Adams’s codefendant in their joint trial, brings this appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief on a motion which alleges ineffectiveness of his counsel for failure to join in the objection of Adams’s counsel.
We held in State v. Stirrup, 469 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), that the crucial test in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is whether counsel’s errors had an effect on the judgment of conviction (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). Because it is now apodictic that the result of the proceeding would have been different, i.e., a reversal of the conviction, but for counsel’s omission, we conclude that ineffectiveness has been established. There is no showing whatever that the failure to object to the time limitation was in the pursuit of a tactical advantage.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Bouchard, 922 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…review were not sufficiently refuted by the trial court’s order and observing that counsel’s- failure to “preserve an- issue which if well founded would result in a reversal has been held to constitute a preliminary basis for relief’); Vaz v. State, 626 So. 2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (concluding that ineffectiveness was shown because if counsel had objected to the time limitation on closing argument, “the result of the proceeding would have been differ [*428] ent, i.e., a reversal of the conviction”).2…
-
Austing v. State, 804 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…rt’s erroneous denial of Austing’s peremptory challenge was per se reversible error, and, if properly preserved, would have resulted in a reversal by this court on direct appeal. See Dwyer v. State, 776 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Vaz v. State, 626 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Therefore, it is apodictic that the result would have been different — ie., reversal on appeal — had trial counsel been effective; therefore, the two-pronged Strickland test has been met. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL. S…
-
Middleton v. State, 41 So. 3d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…n a legal question upon which this court has already passed. We turn next to the asserted tension between Stirrup and appellant’s present argument. We have noted with interest another Third District decision applying the Stirrup rule, Vaz v. State, 626 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). There, the appellant alleged ineffectiveness in his attorney’s failure to object to the trial court’s allowance of only fifteen minutes of closing argument. See id. at 1022. Counsel for Vaz’ codefendant, who preserved an objectio…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- State v. Delmer Stirrup, 469 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Adams v. State, 585 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)