RICHARD ALLEN JACKSON, 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 affirmed the denial of postconviction relief because although counsel's performance was deficient, the defendant failed to show prejudice.
Defendant alleged his trial counsel gave him incorrect advice about the right to closing arguments, coercing him not to testify. The trial court denie…
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 Prejudice Prong Of Ineffective Assistance Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Richard Jackson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
Although the trial court reached the correct result, it stated an incorrect reason for denying Jackson’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for coercing him into not testifying. Jackson alleged that prior to trial and until the State rested, his counsel advised him that his testimony was critical and counsel prepared him to testify. After the State rested, his counsel advised him that the State had not met its burden of proof and that if Jackson did not testify, he would have the benefit of the final opportunity to address the jury during closing arguments. Based on this advice, Jackson decided not to testify.
The order denying the motion states that Jackson “admits in his motion that his counsel advised him of the advantage of not testifying and having a double closing argument” and that he “has failed to show how he was coerced, how his counsel’s performance was deficient, and that he was prejudiced by this deficiency.” Jackson’s allegations are sufficient to show that counsel’s performance was deficient because, contrary to what Jackson claims his counsel told him, his testimony would not affect his right to first and last closing arguments. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.250 (“a defendant offering no testimony in his or her own behalf, except the defendant’s own, shall be entitled to the concluding argument before the jury”) (emphasis, added). However, because Jackson failed to show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, the trial court reached the correct result. Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363, 1365 (Fla.1996).
Affirmed.
FULMER, A.C.J., and QUINCE and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Everhart v. State, 773 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…correct statement of the law, see Britton v. State, 604 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and would constitute deficient performance by counsel sufficient to require relief, provided that Everhart can show that he was prejudiced. See Jackson v. State, 700 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Everhart goes on to allege that, but for this incorrect advice, he would have testified. He asserts that he would have told the jury that he did have permission to enter the apartment, that the officer mis-eharacterized his stat…
Authorities Cited
- Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1996)