HENRY WILLIAMS, 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.
Henry Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Williams claimed his trial counsel wrongly advised him to withdraw a plea agreement and proceed to trial, resulting in a harsher sentence. The court reversed and remanded, finding that an evidentiary hearing was required rather than a facial denial of the motion.
The trial court erred in denying the Rule 3.850 motion on grounds of facial insufficiency without an evidentiary hearing. Generally, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether counsel's actions constituted a tactical decision or ineffective assistance.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel may require an evidentiary hearing to determine if counsel's actions were tactical decision…
[2] A trial court must attach portions of the record supporting its denial of post-conviction relief if the record conclusively shows the defendant is entitled to no relief.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Generally, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether action or inaction by trial counsel was a tactical decision for which no relief can be granted.”
Establishes the legal standard that evidentiary hearings are normally necessary in post-conviction counsel effectiveness claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams had entered into a plea agreement but was advised by his trial counsel to withdraw the plea on armed robbery and theft charges and proceed to…
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 Tactical Decisions By Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Henry Williams urges error in the trial court’s denial of his Rule 3.850 motion alleging that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in recommending that he withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial, which resulted in his receiving a harsher sentence than that called for in the plea agreement. The motion alleges that counsel advised him that he could not be given the sentence he in fact received after the jury found him guilty.
Williams alleged in the motion that after hearing Williams’ deposition testimony against his co-defendant, trial counsel suggested that he withdraw his plea on the armed robbery and theft charges and proceed to trial because he could not be charged with the armed robbery. Williams further alleged that he told trial counsel he did not want to risk another trial for armed robbery and risk receiving another life sentence. Allegedly, trial counsel assured Williams that he could not receive another life sentence because the appellate court had reversed that sentence.
The trial court denied the motion for post-conviction relief on grounds that the motion was facially insufficient, ruling that the actions by trial counsel were tactical decisions, which cannot justify post-conviction relief, citing Gonzalez v. State, 579 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). See Buford v. State, 492 So. 2d 355 (Fla.1986). We note that the trial court in Gonzalez denied the motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing, which has not yet taken place in the instant ease. Generally, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether action or inaction by trial counsel was a tactical decision for which no relief can be granted. See Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In its brief, “the State acknowledges that the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief must be reversed.”
If on remand the court finds that the record in the case conclusively shows that the defendant is entitled to no relief and denies the motion, it must attach portions of the record supporting this conclusion. If the record does not conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the court should hold an evidentiary hearing and make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Thames v. State, 454 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ALLEN, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kiser v. State, 678 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ion is not supported by attachment of any portions of the record. “Generally, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether action or inaction by trial counsel was a tactical decision for which no relief can be granted.” Williams v. State, 647 So. 2d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse as to this ground only. On remand, the trial court shall either attach to its order again denying relief those portions of the record which conclusively demonstrate that appellant is entitled to no r…
-
Charleston Long v. State, 214 So. 3d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…arding the existence of a surveillance video. The record demonstrates that there was conflicting testimony on this point and the postconviction court was not in the position to weigh the evidence absent an evidentiary hearing. See Williams v. State, 647 So. 2d 996, 997 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“If the record does not conclusively show that the defendant is entitled to no relief, the court should hold an evidentiary hearing and make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.”). Accordingly the order is…
-
Bacon v. State, 729 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…of an arguably inconsistent defense, standing alone, does not conclusively show that failure to present a voluntary intoxication defense was a tactical decision. Hester. See also Kiser v. State, 678 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Williams v. State, 647 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The order under review is otherwise affirmed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings under rule 3.850. ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., CONCUR. JOANOS, J., CONCURS IN R…
Authorities Cited
- Buford v. State, 492 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 1986)
- Gonzalez v. State, 579 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Thames v. State, 454 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Henderson v. State, 634 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Thomas v. State, 634 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)