STEPHEN JAMES OAKLEY, 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.
Stephen Oakley appeals the trial court's denial of postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial withholding of evidence, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The appellate court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for an evidentiary hearing on the claim that trial counsel failed to read the witness list to prospective jurors, resulting in selection of a juror related to a state witness.
The court affirmed denial of relief on the opening statement claim (reasonable trial strategy), the Brady claim (counsel abandoned the issue), and the appellate ineffectiveness claim (must be raised in habeas corpus petition). The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the claim that counsel failed to read the witness list to prospective jurors, as this claim was not conclusively refuted by the record and was sufficiently pleaded.
[1] Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, not in a motion for postconviction relief.
[2] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires allegations demonstrating both deficient performance and resulting prejudice.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Although Defendant alleged a variety of grounds in his motion, no testimony was presented at the evidentiary hearing as these grounds either should, could or were raised on direct appeal.”
Trial court's explanation for not addressing most issues at the evidentiary hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOakley was convicted and filed a 3.850 motion alleging multiple grounds for relief, including three instances of ineffective assistance of trial couns…
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 Brady Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stephen James Oakley, appeals an order of the trial court denying postconvietion relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Oakley alleges three instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He alleges the state withheld evidence and claims his appellate counsel was ineffective. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
In his 3.850 motion filed in the trial court, Oakley alleged a number of grounds for relief including, inter alia, the grounds asserted on this appeal. Only one issue, however, was addressed at the evidentiary hearing, ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s act of stating in opening argument that Oakley and the eodefendant had lied to the police. The trial court denied relief on this claim finding counsel’s action a reasonable trial strategy. We affirm the denial of relief on this point. We also affirm the denial of relief on the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel issue since this ground can only be raised in the appellate court in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1992); Hill v. State, 639 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
On all other issues the trial court stated, “Although Defendant alleged a variety of grounds in his motion, no testimony was presented at the evidentiary hearing as these grounds either should, could or were raised on direct appeal.” Although the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move for a change of venue and the claim involving the state’s failure to disclose evidence were properly raised in a postcon-viction motion, we nonetheless affirm the denial of relief on these issues. The ineffective claim does not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate the two prongs for ineffectiveness enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Cherry v. State, 659 So. 2d 1069 (Fla.1995). The denial of relief is affirmed on the Brady1 claim because the record indicates defense counsel abandoned this issue.
Thus, the only claim that is not refuted by the record and sufficiently pleaded is the ineffective assistance claim on the issue of the failure to read the witness list to prospective jurors thereby resulting in the selection of a juror who was the father of a state witness. , Since the record attached to the trial court’s order denying relief does not conclusively refute this claim, we vacate the trial court’s denial of relief on this point only and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions to have an evidentiary hearing.
FRANK, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 750 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…actions during voir dire of systematically excluding minorities in jury pool were facially sufficient even though defendant did not specify how he was prejudiced). In reaching this conclusion, we have not overlooked our decision in Oakley v. State, 677 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In Oakley, we affirmed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue because the claim did “not allege sufficient facts to demonstrate the two prongs for…
-
Carter v. State, 713 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…appellate counsel is properly raised by habeas petition and not in a motion for rehearing in the very case upon which the claim of ineffective assistance is based. See generally Johnson v. State, 694 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Oakley v. State, 677 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, the motion for rehearing and clarification is stricken. WARNER, STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
-
Castro v. State, 794 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ssion the remainder of the claims that were summarily denied. We note that claims asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be raised in a petition filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c). See Oakley v. State, 677 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded. FULMER and GREEN, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963)
- Cherry v. State, 659 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1995)
- McArthur Breedlove v. Singletary, 595 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1992)
- Hill v. State, 639 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Wilson v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 639 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)