JAMES BUTLER, 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.
The court held that the failure to object to the illegal creation of a judicial division constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, entitling the appellant to resentencing.
[1] A defendant fails to meet the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call alibi witnesses when the state presents testimony that the witnesses…
[2] A claim regarding the illegal creation of a judicial division, raised for the first time in a motion for post-conviction relief, is not preserved for appeal.
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 intelligenceAppellant sought post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call alibi witnesses and for failing to object to th…
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 Florida Rules Of Judicial Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the denial of appellant’s rule 3.850 amended motion. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Appellant argued before the trial court and here that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to contact alibi witnesses and call them ,to testify at trial. The witnesses testified at the rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing that they had not been contacted by anyone on appellant’s behalf prior to or during trial. The state presented testimony that the witnesses had been contacted in a timely fashion and could not be of assistance. After reviewing the record, we find that appellant failed to meet his burden with respect to this claim. See Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1984).
Appellant also argues that he is entitled to resentencing because he was convicted in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit’s habitual felony offender division, which was not created in accordance with the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. See Hartley v. State, 650 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Because appellant raised this issue for the first time in his motion for post-conviction relief, the issue has not been preserved. See Willie v. State, 600 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
In his amendment to the rule 3.850 motion, appellant has raised a persuasive point; namely, the failure of his trial counsel to object to the illegal creation by administrative order of the serious habitual felony offender division in which appellant was sentenced. Because we have notice that other members of the public defender’s office were successfully attacking the creation of such division, the failure of appellant’s public defender to do so constituted ineffective assistance of counsel in light of Hartley, 650 So. 2d at 1046-48,1050.1
On remand, appellant is to be resentenced in a properly constituted division.
GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and DELL, JJ., concur. . We are aware of Dennis v. State, 673 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), but are unable to say, with any certainty, that the two cases conflict for the same reason that our companion court could not evaluate our decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heaton v. State, 711 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…on its merits. We affirm. Appellant alleges that the career criminal division was illegally created, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the handling of his case in that division. Appellant cites to Butler v. State, 684 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), reh’g denied & denied en banc (1997), in which this court found that defense counsel’s failure to object to the illegal creation of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit’s habitual felony offender division, in which the defendant was s…
-
State v. Jacobs, 689 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…s and after the lawyer assessed the possible negative impact on the jury. Not calling those witnesses was not ineffective assistance of counsel and does not warrant a new trial. Torres-Arboleda v. Dugger, 636 So. 2d 1321 (Fla.1994); Butler v. State, 684 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). More important, however, is the fact that the court considered the petition which was clearly filed too late. Appellee filed a defective petition in May 1994 attacking his judgment. The trial court properly denied that petition…
Authorities Cited
- Downs v. State, 453 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. O'Neal, 673 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Neuromed, Inc. v. Fla. Energy Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 600 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Stanford Lamar v. State, 650 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)