STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIAM J. O'ROURKE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's order granting O'Rourke a new trial on attempted first-degree murder, finding that the failure to instruct the jury on justifiable and excusable homicide was harmless error when the crime charged was two steps removed from the lesser offense. The court affirmed the denial of O'Rourke's ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
The court affirmed the denial of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding substantial competent evidence that counsel advised O'Rourke of his right to testify and that O'Rourke made an informed decision not to testify. The court reversed the order granting a new trial, holding that the harmless error rule applies when a jury instruction on a lesser charge that is two steps removed from the crime of conviction is omitted.
[1] A defendant's decision not to testify is considered informed when counsel advises the defendant of the right to testify and the defendant makes a knowing choice.
[2] The harmless error rule applies to a trial court's failure to instruct on a lesser included offense that is two steps removed from the crime of conviction.
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“The harmless error rule applies when a court fails to give an instruction on a lesser charge that is two steps removed from the crime for which a defendant has been convicted.”
Establishes the harmless error standard governing jury instruction omissions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam J. O'Rourke was convicted of attempted first-degree murder. He filed a rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief challenging his conviction…
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 Rule 3.850 Motion For Post-Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
The state appeals an order on William J. O’Rourke’s rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief which granted O’Rourke a new trial on the charge of attempted first-degree murder. O’Rourke cross-appeals alleging the trial court erred when it denied relief based upon his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
We affirm the order denying O’Rourke relief based on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Substantial competent evidence supported the court’s finding that counsel advised O’Rourke of his right to testify and that O’Rourke made an informed decision not to testify. See Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1996) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).
We reverse the order that vacated O’Rourke’s conviction for attempted first-degree murder and that ordered a new trial on the ground that the jury was not instructed on justifiable and excusable homicide. The harmless error rule applies when a court fails to give an instruction on a lesser charge that is two steps removed from the crime for which a defendant has been convicted. State v. Abreau, 363 So. 2d 1063 (Fla.1978). We reverse because O’Rourke was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and complains of an improper instruction on manslaughter. We distinguish Blandon v. State, 657 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) because there the defendant was not convicted of first-degree murder. The information in Blandón charged a violation of section 784.07(3), Florida Statutes (1993), murder of a law enforcement officer, and the defendant was not convicted of any particular degree of murder. But compare, Isaac v. State, 626 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), rev. denied, 634 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1994) with Thompson v. State, 667 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3rd DCA) (construing State v. Iacovone, 660 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1995)), rev. granted, 675 So. 2d 931 (Fla.1996); accord, Moody v. State, 679 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Accordingly, we reverse the order vacating the conviction for attempted first-degree murder and ordering a new trial, we direct the court to reinstate the conviction of attempted first-degree murder, and we otherwise affirm the orders on the motion for post-conviction relief.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part.
W. SHARP, and GOSHORN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spivey v. State, 857 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Jones v. State, 845 So. 2d 55 (Fla.2003); Cooper v. State, 856 So. 2d 969 (Fla.2003); and State v. O’Rourke, 696 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 707 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1998). PETERSON, GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Grant v. State, 363 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Iacovone, 660 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1995)
- Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1996)
- Blandon v. State, 657 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Thompson v. State, 667 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Isaac v. State, 626 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Moody v. State, 679 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)