HAROLD WAYNE GREEN, 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.
Harold Wayne Green was convicted of ten counts of sexual battery, four counts of lewd assault, and nine counts of lewd molestation. He appealed the trial court's summary denial of his post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to exclude certain medical testimony and Williams rule evidence. The appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The court held that both claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were legally sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record. The claim regarding physician testimony under Florida Statutes section 90.403 and the claim regarding failure to utilize the inconsistent police report to exclude Williams rule evidence both warranted further proceedings.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is legally sufficient if the claims are not conclusively refuted by the record.
[2] Failure to object to physician testimony repeating a child victim's allegations, where physical findings are equivocal, may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
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 agree with the defendant that his claim that his counsel was ineffective in not seeking to exclude the physician testimony under Florida Statutes section 90.403 is legally sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record.”
Establishes that the ineffective assistance claim regarding physician testimony met the legal sufficiency threshold and was not conclusively refuted.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGreen was convicted of multiple sexual abuse offenses. At trial, a physician serving as medical director of a child protection team testified based on…
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 Williams Rule Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant was convicted of ten counts of sexual battery, four counts of lewd, lascivious, or indecent assault, and nine counts of lewd and lascivious molestation. The defendant now appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he alleges that his counsel should have objected to the physician testimony of the medical director of the child protection team whose physical findings were entirely equivocal and who took the stand for the sole apparent purpose of repeating the child victim’s allegations of sexual abuse. He also alleges that his attorney was ineffective in failing to use a police report in which the Williams1 rule witness minimized her alleged abuse in seeking to exclude that Williams rule evidence.
We agree with the defendant that his claim that his counsel was ineffective in not seeking to exclude the physician testimony under Florida Statutes section 90.403 is legally sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record. See Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992). We also agree that his claim that his counsel was ineffective in not using the police report to seek to exclude the Williams rule evidence is legally sufficient and not conclusively refuted by the record. While it is true that Williams rule issues were addressed on direct appeal, obviously the defendant could not raise his counsel’s failure to utilize the inconsistent police report on direct appeal.
We thus reverse and remand for the trial court to attach portions of the record conclusively refuting these claims or to hold an evidentiary hearing on these issues.
Reversed and remanded.
STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.
WARNER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s reversal on the Williams rule evidence for attachments of portions of the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim. The testimony of the Williams rule witness is not contained in this record, making it impossible to evaluate that claim. However, as to the testimony of the physician, I would hold that the appellant failed to show Strickland 2 prejudice in the admission of the testimony because the testimony was cumulative to the child’s own testimony at trial.
WARNER, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority’s reversal on the Williams rule evidence for attachments of portions of the record which conclusively refute the appellant’s claim. The testimony of the Williams rule witness is not contained in this record, making it impossible to evaluate that claim. However, as to the testimony of the physician, I would hold that the appellant failed to show Strickland
prejudice in the admission of the testimony because the testimony was cumulative to the child’s own testimony at trial.
. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)