MARIO ALPHONSO WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Self Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mario Alphonso Williams appeals the denial of his post-conviction Rule 3.850, Fla. R.Crim. P. motion in which he asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for faffing to call two defense witnesses in support of his allegations of self-defense at trial. After reviewing competent, substantial evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing conducted below, we conclude that the trial court properly concluded that the actions of Williams’ trial counsel were strategic or tactical decisions made with the best interest of Williams in mind. It follows that 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montenegro v. State, 876 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…f Criminal Procedure 3.850, following an evidentiary hearing. As the trial courts rulings are supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm the order denying relief. See Machin v. State, 867 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 808 So. 2d 267, 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Butler v. State, 807 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 828 So. 2d 384 (Fla.2002). Affirmed.'…
-
Franchot Brown v. State, 11 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…Because the trial court’s ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm the order denying relief. See Montenegro v. State, 876 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Machin v. State, 867 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 808 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Affirmed.…
-
Francky Louis v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…strategy. The trial court then entered the challenged order denying appellant’s post-conviction motion. We affirm because the trial court’s order is supported by competent, substantial evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing. Williams v. State, 808 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). As stipulated by the parties, the trial court’s order contains a scrivener’s error. The order misidentifies as Ground Five – rather than Ground Four – the ground upon which the trial court conducted the evidentiary hearing. Whil…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Shere v. State, 742 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1999)
- Valle v. State, 778 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2001)
- Ford v. State, 776 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)