ANDRE WILSON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Wilson obtained habeas corpus relief for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. His appellate attorney failed to raise a jury instruction issue that Wilson's trial counsel had requested, even though the same issue was successfully raised by his co-defendant in a separate appeal, resulting in the co-defendant's conviction being reversed on that count.
The court granted the habeas corpus petition, finding that Wilson's appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the jury instruction issue. The court reversed Wilson's conviction for possession of cannabis with intent to deliver and remanded for a new trial, as he was entitled to the same relief as his co-defendant.
[1] Appellate counsel's failure to raise an issue that was raised and successful in a co-defendant's appeal constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel.
[2] A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction requiring the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew of the presence of a controlled substance and…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We grant this petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise an issue that was raised in a separate appeal by the co-defendant, resulting in the co-defendant receiving a new trial.”
Establishes the core holding that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the jury instruction issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilson and his co-defendant Dondrict Cherry were jointly tried for trafficking cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. At trial, b…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
We grant this petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise an issue that was raised in a separate appeal by the co-defendant, resulting in the co-defendant receiving a new trial. Petitioner and his co-defendant, Don-drick Cherry, were jointly charged and tried with trafficking in cocaine and possession of cannabis with intent to deliver. During their trial, Cherry’s counsel requested a jury instruction, pursuant to Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla.1996), that the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner knew of the presence of the marijuana and also knew of its illicit nature before he could be convicted of its possession. Petitioner’s counsel specifically joined in co-defendant counsel’s request, which the trial court denied.
Petitioner’s brief failed to challenge the trial court’s denial of his request for this instruction and his conviction and sentence were affirmed by this court. In co-defendant Cherry’s appeal, Cherry v. State, 775 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), however, we affirmed Cherry’s conviction for trafficking, but reversed his conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver based on the failure to include the requested instruction.
The trial record reflects that Petitioner, like his co-defendant, testified that he never went into the kitchen (where the marijuana was located) and never saw the drugs prior to the arrival of the police.
The major distinction between Cherry’s argument and Petitioner’s is that in Cherry’s case, he testified that he was a guest in Petitioner’s apartment and that he had never been to the apartment before. As to Petitioner, it was undisputedly his apartment, and there was other circumstantial evidence of guilt. Both defended, however, arguing that they did not know about the presence of the marijuana, thus, making the instruction critical.
In Cherry, this court rejected the argument that the lower court’s denial of the instruction amounted to harmless error. See also Scott v. State, 808 So. 2d 166 (Fla.2002)(failure to give instruction not harmless error). It is clear to us that had the issue been raised, Petitioner was entitled to a reversal on the same basis as his co-defendant.
We, therefore, find the petition legally sufficient and grant relief. The conviction and sentence are reversed as to the charge of possession of cannabis with intent to deliver and, as to that charge, we remand for a new trial. See Kleckley v. State, 810 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Moment v. State, 785 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chicone v. State, 684 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1996)
- Scott v. State, 808 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2002)
- Dondrick Cherry v. State, 775 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Moment v. State, 785 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Kleckley v. State, 810 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Howell v. Jackson, 810 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)