STEVEN CHARLES KORNEGAY, 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 appellate court reversed and remanded a denial of a motion to vacate sentence because the trial court failed to make factual findings required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d) before concluding that counsel's deficient performance did not prejudice the defendant under Strickland.
A trial court must make explicit factual findings and conclusions of law when ruling on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, and cannot rely solely on legal conclusions without supporting factual findings.
[1] When ruling on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. …
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 intelligenceKornegay appealed an order denying his motion to vacate sentence following an evidentiary hearing on his claim that defense counsel failed to move for…
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 Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate sentence, entered following an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d), which provides that once an evidentiary hearing has been held, the trial court shall “determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.” Without making any factual findings, the court concluded that defense counsel’s failure to move for judgment of acquittal and for mistrial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, but that the evidence did not show there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different without such deficient performance.
The two-pronged analysis of whether counsel provided ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), is a mixed question of law and fact. On review, the appellate court must give deference to the trial court’s factual findings, and independently review the trial court’s legal conclusions. Stephens v. State, 748 So. 2d 1028 (Fla.1999). Because the court did not make factual findings at the evidentiary hearing or in the written order, this court cannot independently review the sufficiency of the court’s conclusion under the prejudice prong. We direct the court on remand to determine whether it can make the necessary findings and conclusions based upon the record that will show appellant was not entitled to relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ERVIN, BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dillbeck v. State, 882 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 2004)…t with the approach taken by the district courts in similar situations. Both the First and Second Districts have recently remanded cases in which the circuit courts failed to make findings of fact as required by rule 3.850(d). See Kornegay v. State, 826 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (remanding to the circuit court for factual findings because ineffective-assistance claims present mixed questions of law and fact which require an appellate court to defer to the factual findings of the trial court while indepen…
-
Hunter v. State, 87 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…. 1st DCA 2007). When the trial court does not make factual findings at the evidentiary hearing or in the written order, “this court cannot independently review the sufficiency of the court’s conclusion under the prejudice prong.” Kornegay v. State, 826 So. 2d 1081, 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Therefore, the proper remedy is to direct the trial court on remand to determine whether it can make the necessary findings and conclusions based upon the record that will show the defendant was not entitled to relief. Id.…
-
Carlton Tyrone Thomas v. State, 954 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d).”). Due to the trial court’s failure, this Court may not reach the merits of appellant’s postconviction claim. Rather, we remand this case to the circuit court to make the needed findings. See, e.g., Kornegay v. State, 826 So. 2d 1081, 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).1 This matter is AFFIRMED in part; and REMANDED in part with directions. On remand, the circuit court is directed to make factual findings and draw legal conclusions regarding appellant’s claim that counsel was ineffective…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Stephens v. State, 748 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1999)