LARRY E. WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRY K. SINGLETARY, JR., 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.
Court granted habeas petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel where appellate counsel failed to raise on direct appeal the trial court's denial of a continuance motion that caused severe prejudice.
Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal the trial court's denial of a continuance motion that severely prejudiced the defendant.
[1] Appellate counsel's failure to raise on direct appeal a trial court's denial of a continuance motion that caused severe prejudice to the defendant constitutes ineffective…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was convicted of carjacking and sentenced to thirty years. On the morning of trial, his counsel moved for a continuance, which the trial cour…
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 Continuance Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Larry E. Williams petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(j) alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Williams was convicted after a jury trial of carjacking and sentenced to thirty years’ prison. On the morning of trial, Williams’ counsel moved for a continuance which was denied. The denial of the motion was not raised on appeal. After a review of the trial record, we conclude that Williams was severely prejudiced by the denial of the continuance. It is also clear from the record that either Williams’ trial counsel was ineffective in her attempt to secure the continuance or his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the denial of that motion on direct appeal.
The State has already successfully defended Williams’ claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the trial court, and this court has affirmed. See Williams v. State, 717 So. 2d. 1019 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The law of the case being that trial counsel was not ineffective in her efforts to secure a continuance, we conclude that appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise the issue on direct appeal. Having determined that Williams was prejudiced by this error, we vacate his judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial.
Petition granted.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cupon v. State, 833 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…at trial, Cupon II, 783 So. 2d at 1240, and that the issue was not raised by appellate counsel, Cupon III, 789 So. 2d at 1122. Appellate counsel’s failure to raise an issue on appeal may constitute ineffective assistance. See Williams v. Singletary, 765 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Guerra-Villafane v. Singletary, 729 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In the case on review, we conclude that appellate counsel’s failure to raise a preserved and meritorious issue [*305] caused the representation to fall outside th…