KEITH A. 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.
Keith Williams appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed dismissal of his claim about jury bias but reversed and remanded his claim about counsel's failure to impeach the state's chief witness.
The court affirmed denial of relief on the juror bias claim because the voir dire transcript conclusively refuted any showing of bias or deficient performance by counsel. The court reversed the denial of relief on the impeachment claim, holding it was not procedurally barred and raised factual questions requiring either record evidence or an evidentiary hearing to determine whether counsel's omission constituted ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington.
[1] An allegation that counsel was ineffective for allowing a biased juror to serve on a jury requires either a conclusive rebuttal by the record or an evidentiary hearing.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires the claimant to identify particular acts or omissions of the lawyer that are outside the range of reasonably compete…
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“An allegation that counsel was ineffective for allowing a biased member of the venire to serve on a jury suggests a deficiency of performance sufficient to require either a conclusive rebuttal by the record or an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the standard for evaluating ineffective assistance claims based on juror bias—requires either conclusive record rebuttal or a hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer during an incident at a prison where he was already incarcerated. In his post-convictio…
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 Juror Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
MICKLE, Judge.
Keith Williams, the appellant, appeals from an order denying his motion for post-convietion relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
In Ground One of his motion, the appellant alleged that trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to strike three jurors who were “obviously prejudicial” to the defense. An allegation that counsel was ineffective for allowing a biased member of the venire to serve on a jury suggests a deficiency of performance sufficient to require either a conclusive rebuttal by the record or an evidentiary hearing. Brown v. State, 654 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gibbs v. State, 604 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
The trial court attached a copy of the entire voir dire, which conclusively refutes the appellant’s suggestion of improper bias among the three specified jurors. In fact, the record establishes that defense counsel did strike other members of the venire who exhibited an unacceptable bias. Having failed to establish a clear, substantial deficiency in counsel’s performance and prejudice to his ease, the appellant’s first ground for relief was properly denied. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
The appellant was convicted for battery on a law enforcement, which had occurred during an incident at the prison where the appellant was already incarcerated. In Ground Two, the appellant alleged that counsel had been ineffective for failing to impeach the testimony of the state’s chief witness. This testimony is alleged to conflict directly with the testimony of the battered victim.
Appellant contends that if counsel had challenged the testimony of the state’s key witness, a question would have been raised as to the victim’s ability to recognize and identify his attacker. The appellant alleged a reasonable probability that counsel’s omission affected the outcome. We must take these allegations to be true because the appellate record does not conclusively rebut them. Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239, 1241 (Fla.1986).
The trial court found that Ground Two is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal.
We disagree with that holding. Sireci v. State, 469 So. 2d 119, 120 (Fla.1985), cert. den., 478 U.S. 1010, 106 S.Ct. 3308, 92 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986); Porter v. State, 626 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (motion was facially sufficient, where it alleged ineffective counsel based on failure to impeach witnesses who had made inconsistent statements). The Supreme Court of Florida has set out the test, modeled on Strickland v. Washington, supra, for evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel:
First, a claimant must identify particular acts or omissions of the lawyer that are shown to be outside the broad range of reasonably competent performance under prevailing professional standards. Second, the clear, substantial deficiency shown must further be demonstrated to have so affected the fairness and the reliability of the proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined.
Kennedy v. State, 547 So. 2d 912, 913-14 (Fla. 1989). Although unartfully stated, the appellant’s allegations in Ground Two raise the type of factual questions that require either attachment of portions of the record to refute the allegations conclusively, or an evidentiary hearing. McCall v. State, 224 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the denial of relief as to Ground One and REVERSE AND REMAND as to Ground Two for attachment of portions of the record or for an evidentiary hearing.
ALLEN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…timony of a “co-conspirator” as hearsay because the witness testified that he was not personally aware of events that happened during the two robberies, but then testified about what other parties told him about the robberies. See Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), citing Porter v. State, 626 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that the appellant made a facially sufficient showing that counsel was ineffective when he failed to object to witness X’s testimony that Y had obtained a gun fr…
-
Bentley v. State, 867 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…r. If the appellant’s allegations are true, defense counsel was ineffective for failing to sufficiently impeach the State’s key witness with noncumulative impeachment evidence. See Ventura v. State, 794 So. 2d 553, 567 (Fla.2001); Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 960, 961-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Nixon v. State, 773 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Porter v. State, 626 So. 2d 268, 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Therefore, the appellant stated a facially sufficient claim. In response to a show cause order pursuant to Tol…
-
Haynes v. State, 729 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…-court identification procedures are facially sufficient to require either an evidentiary hearing or attachment of portions of the record refuting the claims. See Jenkins v. State, 625 So. 2d 883, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 960, 961-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). With regard to this point, appellant alleged that his counsel failed to file a motion to suppress, or to otherwise object, to an in-court identification of appellant as the person police officers deemed guilty. Appellan…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Kennedy v. State, 547 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1989)
- Harich v. State, 484 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1986)
- Sireci v. State, 469 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1985)
- Landahl v. City of Cape Coral, 478 U.S. 1010 (U.S. 1986)
- Welch v. Rice, 478 U.S. 1010 (U.S. 1986)
- Porter v. State, 626 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Gibbs v. State, 604 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Brown v. State, 654 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Frew v. Poole & Kent Co., 654 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)