IGNACIO PORRO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 court held that the trial court erred by refusing to allow a proffer of excluded witnesses' testimony during an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The court heard tes…
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 Proffer Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ignacio Porro appeals an order denying his motion for posteonviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant-appellant’s motion, which asserted a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court took the testimony of trial counsel, but declined to hear several other witnesses subpoenaed by defendant. The trial court also refused to allow a proffer of the excluded witnesses’ testimony. The court should have allowed a proffer so as to permit defendant to complete his record. See § 90.104(l)(b), Fla.Stat. (1993); Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 104.3 (1995 ed.).*
We reverse the order and remand to permit Porro to make a proffer of the testimony which would have been given by the excluded witnesses, and for such other proceedings, if any, the trial court deems appropriate. We express no view on the merits of defendant’s Rule 3.850 motion.
The trial court also entered an alternative holding that Rule 3.850 motion was time-barred. Both parties agree that the motion was timely, as it was filed within two years after issuance of this court’s mandate in defendant’s direct appeal. See Porro v. State, 620 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (table).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
*
The trial court has discretion over the method of making an offer of proof. See Ehrhardt, supra, § 104.3. In this case counsel requested leave to make an oral or written proffer summarizing the evidence the witnesses would give.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holmes v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 891 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ral proffer may be sufficient, particularly if there is no dispute as to what the evidence would have been. O’Shea v. O’Shea, 585 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Whether a proffer is sufficient is within the trial court’s discretion. Porro v. State, 656 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). If the trial court in this case had ruled that the website chronology in and of itself had been insufficient, it would not have been an abuse of discretion. The proffer; however, also included copies of letters and memos on Fires…
-
Johnson v. Moore, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (M.D. Fla. 2007)…may be sufficient, particularly if there is no dispute as to what the evidence would have been. O’Shea v. O’Shea, 585 So.2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Whether a proffer is sufficient is within the trial court’s discretion. Porro v. State, 656 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The proffer by defense counsel of Pernell Davis’s prospective testimony at Johnson’s trial in the present ease was detailed and encompassing, received by the trial court without reservation, and overheard by the prosecution w…