ROBERT OISORIO, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on interference with the right to testify must satisfy both prongs of the Strickland test. The court held that both prongs must be satisfied, rejecting a per se prejudice rule.
A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's interference with the right to testify must satisfy both prongs of Strickland v. Washington: demonstrating deficient performance and prejudice to the defense. The court rejected a per se rule of prejudice based on the significance of the right to testify.
[1] A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's interference with the right to testify must satisfy both prongs of Strickland v. …
[2] To obtain post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the right to testify, a defendant must demonstrate both deficient performance by counsel…
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“a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel's interference with his right to testify must meet both prongs of Strickland v. Washington”
Establishes the holding that both deficient performance and prejudice must be shown
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOisorio and three codefendants were convicted of drug trafficking. After direct appeal affirmance, Oisorio filed a postconviction motion claiming inef…
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 Strickland cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Justice.
We have for review State v. Oisorio, 657 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Gill v. State, 632 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. We find that a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s interference with his right to testify must meet both prongs of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), in order to obtain post-conviction relief.1
Oisorio and three eodefendants were convicted of drug trafficking. Oisorio appealed his conviction, and the Third District per curiam affirmed. Oisorio v. State, 585 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Oisorio thereafter filed a postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. His motion included an allegation that counsel had prevented him from testifying. The trial court granted Oisorio’s motion. The Third District reversed because the record demonstrated, as a matter of law, that Oisorio did not satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland, which requires the defendant to show that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Oisorio, 657 So. 2d at 5.
Oisorio then filed a motion for certification. He asked the Third District to certify conflict with Gill, which held that a defendant claiming he was denied his right to testify need not satisfy the second prong of Strickland. The Third District acknowledged that its decision conflicted with Gill. However, the court declined to certify conflict because it recognized that Gill was based on an erroneous interpretation of United States v. Teague, 953 F. 2d 1525 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 842, 113 S.Ct. 127, 121 L.Ed.2d 82 (1992), and its companion case Nichols v. Butler, 953 F. 2d 1550 (11th Cir.1992). Oisorio, 657 So. 2d at 5.
In Teague, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that Strickland provided the appropriate means of addressing claims that a defendant’s right to testify was violated. Teague, 953 F. 2d at 1533. Upon reviewing the record of the evidentiary hearing in that case, the court determined that the defendant did not demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient. Id. at 1535. Because defendant failed to meet the first prong of Strickland, the court found it unnecessary to address the second prong. Teague, 953 F. 2d at 1535. The court, however, did not find as Gill indicates that a defendant alleging counsel interfered with his or her right to testify must only prove counsel’s deficient performance in order to obtain relief.
Oisorio concedes that Gill misconstrued Teague but argues that in light of the significance of the right to testify, this Court should adopt a perse rule of prejudice like that advanced in Gill. We decline to adopt such a rule. Rather, we hold, consistent with Teague, that in order to obtain postconviction relief, a defendant claiming his or her right to testify was violated must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Accordingly, we approve the Third District’s decision in this case and disapprove Gill to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion. We remand the case to the Third District for further proceedings consistent with our decision.
It is so ordered.
KOGAN, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, HARDING and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. . We address only the conflict issue. We do not address the other issues presented in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (39 total)
-
Morris v. State, 931 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2006)…prongs of Strickland must be satisfied. See Monlyn v. State, 894 So. 2d 832, 837 (Fla.2004) (requiring defendant claiming ineffective assistance from failure to advise him of right to testify to satisfy both prongs of Strickland); Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363, 1364-65 (Fla.1996) (same). In Teague, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals elaborated on the importance of trial counsel’s obligation to inform the defendant of his or her right to testify: Defense counsel bears the primary responsibility for ad…
-
Lott v. State, 931 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2006)…fered with his right to testify. To prevail on this claim, Lott must satisfy the Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: first, he must prove deficient performance, and second, he must prove prejudice. See, e.g., Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363, 1364 (Fla.1996) (“We find that a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on counsel’s interference with his right to testify must meet both prongs of Strickland ... in order to obtain postconviction relief.”). The circuit court f…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 990 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 2008)…a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to testify. When a defendant raises a claim that counsel interfered with the defendant’s right to testify, the defendant must satisfy the Strickland standard to prevail on the claim. See Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1996). To prove that the defendant validly waived his right to testify, the record should at least “support a finding that such a waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.” Lott v. State, 931 So. 2d 807, 818 (Fla.2006) (quoting…
Previewing 3 of 39 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)
- United States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1992)
- Gill v. State, 632 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Buddy Nichols v. Mac Sim Butler, 953 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir. 1992)
- Bobo v. Caterair Int'l Corp., 657 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- State v. Oisorio, 657 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Brown v. Brown, 506 U.S. 842 (U.S. 1992)
- Brown v. Equitable Fin. Cos., 506 U.S. 842 (U.S. 1992)