CLARENCE FORD, 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 defendant's motion for rehearing should be denied as his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit.
Clarence Ford was convicted of resisting arrest and other offenses. He filed a motion for rehearing after the appellate court affirmed the trial court…
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 Tactical Decisions By Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Clarence Ford filed a motion for rehearing after we affirmed per curiam the trial court’s order summarily denying his Rule 3.850 motion, which alleged three instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Ford was convicted of two counts of resisting arrest without violence and other offenses after a jury trial. We deny his motion.
Ford argues that his trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate pre-trial in vestigation by failing to interview and call several potential witnesses. Under the circumstances, we conclude that he was not entitled to relief on this claim. As the trial court pointed out in its order, generally the decision whether to call certain defense witnesses is a tactical decision not subject to attack under Rule 3.850. Given these circumstances, the tactical decision was a reasonable one as two of the three witnesses were Ford’s own parents; defense counsel could have well decided that calling them would not have been beneficial.
Ford further complained that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him not to testify on his own behalf. We conclude that he was not entitled to relief on this claim. As the trial court pointed out in its order, Ford failed to demonstrate any prejudice. See Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Ford also asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for allegedly failing to conduct a proper cross-examination of a state witness, Ms. Renee Buggs. Specifically, Ford complained that defense counsel’s cross-examination of Ms. Buggs consisted of only one question, whether she actually saw Ford “windup" and punch” any of the officers. Ford failed to demonstrate just how his trial counsel was ineffective for limiting his cross-examination to that question. Trial counsel may well have had good reason not to ask any other questions of her. MOTION FOR REHEARING DENIED.
GRIFFIN and PALMER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford v. State, 825 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2002)…PER CURIAM. We have for review Ford v. State, 776 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (opinion on rehearing), which expressly and directly conflicts with the decision in Jackson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), on the issue of whether an evidentiary hearing is required to determine whether trial coun…
-
Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…have impeached and conducted an effective cross-examination of the state’s star witness. Because the appellant did not allege how the failure to more thoroughly cross-examine hurt his case, the allegation is facially insufficient. See Ford v. State, 776 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (dismissing as facially insufficient a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because the appellant failed to explain how asking only one question on cross was ineffective, reasoning that trial counsel may have had good reaso…
-
Williams v. State, 808 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…such decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) Valle v. State, 778 So. 2d 960 (Fla.2001) Shere v. State, 742 So. 2d 215 (Fla.1999) Ford v. State, 776 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)