JERAIL LERON LAW, 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.
Law appeals the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 ineffective assistance of counsel motion. The appellate court finds that his claim regarding trial counsel's failure to call alibi witnesses is facially sufficient and not refuted by the record, reversing the trial court's summary denial and remanding for an evidentiary hearing.
The trial court's summary denial of Law's ineffective assistance claim regarding the failure to call alibi witnesses was improper. Law made a facially sufficient claim not refuted by the record, and the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing because alibi witnesses could have changed the trial outcome when there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to interview or call alibi witnesses is facially sufficient if not conclusively refuted by the record.
[2] A defendant's general statement of satisfaction with counsel's representation does not conclusively refute a claim of ineffective assistance for failing to call witnesses…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 conclude that Law's comments do not conclusively refute this ineffective assistance claim. First, the comments that the trial court pointed out pertained to Law's decision not to testify rather than his right to call witnesses.”
Establishes that post-trial expressions of satisfaction with counsel do not conclusively refute ineffective assistance claims, particularly when they address different decisions than the counsel's strategic choices.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw was convicted of carjacking with a firearm, armed burglary of a dwelling with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, and possession of a fi…
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 Misidentification Defense cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
Jerail Leron Law appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion. Four of Law’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were properly denied and do not merit discussion. However, we find that ground three is facially sufficient and is not refuted by the record.
Law was convicted of carjacking with a firearm, armed burglary of a dwelling with a firearm, aggravated assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Law’s convictions were affirmed on appeal. Law v. State, 824 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). In ground three of his rule 3.850 motion, Law argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview or call two alibi witnesses to testify on his behalf and support his defense of misidentification. As a result of counsel’s omission, Law claims the victim’s identification of Law was virtually unchallenged.
The trial court denied this ineffective assistance claim, pointing out that when the court questioned Law on his decision not to testify. Law indicated that the court should let defense counsel do his job and that he felt counsel was representing him “in the best way he can.” The trial court found that Law could have complained of counsel’s failure to call witnesses at that point, but failed to do so.
We conclude that Law’s comments do not conclusively refute this ineffective assistance claim.
First, the comments that the trial court pointed out pertained to Law’s decision not to testify rather than his right to call witnesses. In addition, Law’s statement indicating satisfaction, made after the state had rested, may have been made based on his belief that it was too late to call witnesses. Compare Stanley v. State, 703 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (plea agreement indicating defendant’s satisfaction with defense counsel does not conclusively refute claim of ineffective assistance for failing to advise defendant of a possible defense).
While the supreme court affirmed the denial of post conviction relief where defense counsel failed to call exculpatory witnesses in Thomas v. State, 838 So. 2d 535 (Fla.2003), the instant case is distinguishable. In Thomas, an evidentiary hearing was held, and counsel testified that he had discussed his decision with the defendant, who agreed with his strategy. In this case, defendant’s motion was denied without an evidentiary hearing.
Additionally, it appears that no witnesses were called for the defense in this case. Although the victim identified Law, there was no physical evidence to connect him to the crime and no other witnesses.
Therefore, there is a reasonable probability that alibi witnesses would have changed the outcome of the trial. In a similar situation, in Williams v. State, 507 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), this court held that a decision not to present available exculpatory witnesses to impeach the state’s eyewitnesses was ineffective assistance of counsel. In Williams, as in this case, there was no physical evidence connecting the defendant to the crime, and the decision in Williams not to call any witnesses was made solely to preserve rebuttal closing argument. This court held that “[a] trial strategy to do nothing ... is not an acceptable one.” Id. at 1123; see also Cole v. State, 700 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
Because Law has made a facially sufficient claim which is not refuted by the record, we reverse the trial court’s order as to ground three and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for evidentiary hearing.
PETERSON and TORPY, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Gutierrez v. State, 27 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…g.” Similarly, after the trial court found Gutierrez violated his probation, the trial court gave him the opportunity to address the court by stating, “You’re about to get sentenced. Do you want to say anything to me about that[?]” In Law v. State, 847 So. 2d 599, 600 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), this court reversed an order denying postconviction relief where a defendant claimed his counsel was ineffective in failing to call two alibi -witnesses. [*195] The trial court denied the motion, pointing out that when the…
-
McINDOO v. State, 98 So. 3d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ions in his postconviction motion that counsel failed to investigate and depose three witnesses who would testify that the defendant did not commit the charged crimes. While the colloquy is not set forth in the opinion, our reliance on Law v. State, 847 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), suggests that the trial court questioned Rollins on his right to testify and not on his right to call witnesses. We found that the court may have left Rollins with the impression that it was too late to call witnesses. Rollins,…
-
Hamilton v. State, 860 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…uted his claims. Our review of the record shows that when Hamilton replied, “No, sir,” Hamilton asked the court if he could confer with his attorneys first. The trial court replied, “Yeah. No matter what the answer, we’re leaving.” In Law v. State, 847 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), this court reversed an order denying post conviction relief where the appellant claimed that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call two alibi witnesses. Id. at 600. The trial court denied the motion by pointing out that…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Thomas v. State, 838 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2003)
- Otero v. State, 703 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Cole v. State, 700 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Jerail L. LAW v. State, 824 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Williams v. State, 507 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)