WILLIE C. HALL, 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.
Willie Hall appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion for ineffective assistance of counsel following his conviction for robbery with a firearm, possession of/threat to use a hoax bomb, and aggravated assault. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that Hall's counsel provided correct legal advice about impeachment and that Hall himself chose not to call available alibi witnesses.
The court held that counsel's advice was correct because a witness must truthfully state the number of prior felony convictions and may be impeached if he lies about them, and further questioning is permissible when a witness lies about the nature of convictions. The court also held that Hall cannot claim ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to call witnesses when it was Hall's own decision not to call them, despite their availability.
[1] A defendant cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call witnesses when the defendant made the decision not to call them.
[2] Trial counsel's advice that a defendant must truthfully state the number of prior felony convictions if they testify is legally correct, as a witness may be impeached wit…
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“a witness who falsely testifies about the number of his prior felony convictions may be impeached with certified copies of his convictions”
Establishes the correctness of counsel's advice that Hall had to truthfully state the number of his prior felony convictions if he testified.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHall was convicted of robbery with a firearm, possession of or threat to use a hoax bomb, and four counts of aggravated assault. He filed a motion 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 Alibi Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
Willie C. Hall challenges the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.
After being convicted of robbery with a firearm, possession of or threat to use a hoax bomb, and four counts of aggravated assault, Hall filed a motion for post-conviction relief asserting ten grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court’s denial of his motion in all respects, but write to briefly address Hall’s arguments that his counsel was ineffective for misadvising him of the consequences of testifying and failing to investigate or call certain alibi witnesses.
Hall claims his trial counsel was ineffective for erroneously telling him that the jury would learn the specific details of his prior robbery conviction if he testified. At the evidentiary hearing on this claim, Hall testified that his trial counsel informed him that if he testified, he had to truthfully state the number of his prior felony convictions. This advice was correct because a witness who falsely testifies about the number of his prior felony convictions may be impeached with certified copies of his convictions. See Sneed v. State, 397 So.2d 931, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Howard v. Risch, 959 So.2d 308, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). His counsel corroborated this statement and also indicated he told Hall that if he tried to mislead the jury or minimize his prior felony convictions, the prosecution could get into the *172specifics of his convictions. This advice also appeal's to be correct, because when a witness lies about the nature of his convictions, he is subject to further questioning to negate or dispel any false impressions that were given. Pryor v. State, 855 So.2d 134, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Hall’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate Tangela Williams as an alibi witness is belied by the fact that she was listed as a defense witness and subpoenaed for trial. We also find no error in the denial of his claim that his trial counsel failed to call certain alibi witnesses. These witnesses were subpoenaed for trial and ready to be called on Hall’s behalf. However, Hall decided he did not want to call them.
At trial, the trial court twice asked Hall if he wanted to call any witnesses on his behalf.1 Each time he stated, “No, sir.” At the evidentiary hearing on his motion for postconviction relief, his trial counsel testified that he specifically asked Hall if he wanted his witnesses to testify and he responded negatively. A defendant may not claim his counsel was ineffective for failing to call witnesses when it was the defendant’s decision not to call them. See Thomas v. State, 838 So.2d 535, 541 (Fla.2003) (affirming denial of ineffective assistance of counsel claim where trial court found that defendant agreed not to call a witness and thus, could not claim ineffective assistance of counsel based on his decision).
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, C.J., MONACO and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Masterson v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…hus, he is not entitled to relief unless counsel misadvised him. Id. Defendant alleges counsel advised him that the State would be able to "bring up his past record," [sic] if he testified. Counsel was correct. See Hall v. State, 10 So. 3d 170, 171-72 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). However, Defendant further alleges that, based upon counsel's advice, he believed the State would be able to cross- examine him regarding the nature of his prior convictions. See Bell v. State, 901 So. 2d…
-
Cruz v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County) (M.D. Fla. 2023)…the State can go no further.” Sneed v. State, 397 So. 2d 931, 933 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). But “a witness who falsely testifies about the number of his prior felony convictions may be impeached with certified copies of his convictions.” Hall v. State, 10 So. 3d 170, 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Trial counsel’s advice to Cruz—that he would only have to state the number of his prior convictions, but that the nature of his convictions might come out if he “opened the door”—was consistent with Florida law on impeachme…
-
Wilder v. State Of Fla. (Duval County) (M.D. Fla. 2022)…So. 2d 535, 541 (Fla. 2003) (affirming denial of ineffective assistance of counsel claim where trial court found defendant agreed not to call witness and, thus, could not claim ineffective assistance of counsel based on his decision); Hall v. State, 10 So. 3d 170, 172 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Defendant is not entitled to relief. . . . . Defendant maintains counsel was ineffective for [failing to] call[] Con[ley] as a witness. Defendant alleges Con[ley] would have testified that other individuals…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sneed v. State, 397 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Thomas v. State, 838 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 2003)
- Theron D. Howard, Jr. v. Risch, 959 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Pryor v. State, 855 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)