BERNARD PEW, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1994-07-08
No. 93-853
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur., GRIFFIN, J., dissents without opinion.
639 So. 2d 693 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1994)

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.

Synopsis

Bernard Pew was convicted of robbery and appealed the denial of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850. The court found that trial counsel's failure to subpoena three key defense witnesses who would have corroborated Pew's innocence constituted deficient performance that undermined confidence in the trial's outcome.


Holding

The court held that counsel's failure to subpoena the three key witnesses whose testimony would have corroborated Pew's account was deficient performance that so affected the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined, warranting vacation of the conviction and remand for a new trial.


Headnotes

[1] A criminal defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel when counsel fails to subpoena key defense witnesses whose testimony would corroborate other defense witnes…

[2] Failure to subpoena witnesses, despite knowing of their existence and importance to the defense, constitutes deficient performance by counsel.

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

Key Quotes

“Pew's counsel failed to subpoena any of these three witnesses whose testimony would have corroborated that of Pew's sole witness.”

Establishes the core deficiency in counsel's performance—failure to present corroborating defense witnesses.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Pew was convicted of robbery. Three defense witnesses had indicated they would testify that Pew was not involved in the scuffle where the robbery occu…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Pew, convicted of robbery, appeals the denial of his 3.850 motion in which he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel in failing to subpoena certain defense witnesses. Two witnesses had promised defense counsel they would appear on the morning of the trial at the courthouse but neither did so. These witnesses, along with a third whose deposition had been taken earlier, indicated that Pew was not involved in the scuffle in which the robbery occurred.

Pew’s counsel failed to subpoena any of these three witnesses whose testimony would have corroborated that of Pew’s sole witness. Pew’s counsel presented his witness list to the state five minutes before the trial was to begin. He admitted that he had been given this list of witnesses by Pew weeks before trial, that he had intended to subpoena the witnesses, and that the list did not receive his attention until the eve of the trial because it was placed “in” rather than “on top” of the file. He further testified that while his best recollection was that appellant wanted to “get [the trial] over with”, appellant was nevertheless adamant in having the three witnesses testify. Because counsel’s failure to subpoena Pew’s key witnesses was a deficiency which “so affected the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined”, we vacate the appellant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So. 2d 927, 932 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 972, 107 S.Ct. 474, 93 L.Ed.2d 418 (1986).

CONVICTION VACATED; REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, J., dissents without opinion.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw