DANIEL MACHIN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Daniel Machín appeals the denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to present alibi witnesses. The trial court found that the proposed alibi witnesses would have either been uncredible or would have actually aided the prosecution by placing the defendant near the crime scene, and thus counsel's performance was not deficient and there was no reasonable probability of a different outcome.
The court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding that trial counsel provided effective assistance. Even if the alibi witnesses had been presented, they would not have changed the outcome; one witness was uncredible and the other's testimony would have placed the defendant within five blocks of the crime scene at the time of the assault, actually strengthening the prosecution's case.
[1] A trial court's credibility determination regarding a witness's testimony is entitled to deference on appeal.
[2] A defendant seeking postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reaso…
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“Given this credibility determination, it was appropriate to deny the post-conviction motion insofar as it depended on Mr. Rodriguez' testimony.”
Establishes that the trial court's credibility finding regarding the alibi witness was dispositive and supported the denial of the postconviction motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMachín was convicted of sexual battery. At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, the trial court heard testimony regarding potential alibi witnesses…
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 Strickland Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Daniel Machín appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing.
Defendant-appellant Machín was convicted of sexual battery. By motion for postconviction relief, he maintained that his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to present alibi witnesses at trial. The trial court heard testimony of trial counsel, the defendant, the defendant’s wife, and Mr. Rodriguez, who was a neighbor and close friend of the defendant.
The defendant contended that he was with Mr. Rodriguez during the time period the sexual assault occurred. After hearing Mr. Rodriguez’ testimony, the trial court ruled that Mr. Rodriguez was lying in an effort to assist his neighbor and close friend.1 Given this credibility determination, it was appropriate to deny the post-conviction motion insofar as it depended on Mr. Rodriguez’ testimony. See Butler v. State, 807 So. 2d 88, 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Fica v. State, 549 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
The defendant contended that his wife should have been called as an alibi witness. The court found the wife to be a credible witness. However, the court also concluded that the wife could only have testified about the time at which the defendant left for work on the day in question, and could not account for the defendant’s whereabouts at the time of the sexual assault.
The court found that overall timetable presented by the defendant for his whereabouts at the time of the sexual assault was physically impossible given the distances, traffic, and weather conditions.
The trial court found that if alibi witnesses had been presented, they would have helped the prosecution by confirming that the defendant was very close to the site of the sexual assault at the time it occurred. The judge stated that if the alibi witnesses had been presented, “you would have put yourself within five blocks of the actual scene, at the time of the incident, and quite frankly driving past the bus stop where the victim claims she was attacked. This would not have affected the outcome of the trial. It probably would have resulted in a quicker verdict [of conviction].” R. 441. The court concluded that trial counsel had provided effective assistance, id., and as already stated, that there was no probability of a different outcome had the proposed alibi witnesses been presented. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
The defendant argues that reversal is required under Light v. State, 796 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), but that case is very different from this one. In that post-conviction case, the critical question was whether the defendant had pointed a gun at a police officer. At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, three witnesses testified that they saw the encounter between the defendant and the police. One of the three testified that the defendant did not point a gun at the police officer. Id. at 615. There was also significant impeachment evidence in the police officer’s personnel file which original trial counsel had failed to discover and use at the original trial. Id. The Light court concluded that the Strickland standard had been satisfied and that there must be a new trial. No such facts exist here.
In the present case the trial court concluded that the Strickland standard was not met, and that finding is supported by competent substantial evidence.
Affirmed.
. The defendant was the godfather of Mr. Rodriguez' son.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montenegro v. State, 876 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of 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.'…
-
Ballester v. State, 869 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…erits, the trial court rejected the defendant’s claim that his trial counsel had been ineffective with respect to the issue of voluntary intoxication. We affirm because this ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Machin v. State, 867 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Further, the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise the defendant of the potential consequences of future recidivism was correctly rejected on authority of Major v. State, 814 So. 2d 424 (Fla.2002). Affi…
-
Franchot Brown v. State, 11 So. 3d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. 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.…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Light v. State, 796 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Butler v. State, 807 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- J.D. v. State, 549 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Fica v. State, 549 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)