STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
SHANNON DONESHA GRAYSON, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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.
Florida appeals a trial court's grant of post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court holds that while the trial court properly found counsel deficient for failing to call alibi witnesses, it failed to make the required prejudice determination under Strickland v. Washington before granting a new trial.
The trial court erred by granting post-conviction relief without making the required prejudice determination under Strickland. A defendant seeking relief for ineffective assistance must prove both deficient performance and prejudice—that there is a reasonable possibility the outcome would have been different but for counsel's errors.
[1] To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show specific acts or omissions of counsel that were so serious that the attorney was not functioning a…
[2] A defendant seeking relief for ineffective assistance of counsel must establish prejudice by showing a reasonable possibility that the outcome of the proceeding would hav…
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 criminal defendant must show specific acts or omissions of counsel that were so serious that the attorney was not functioning as counsel guaranteed to the defendant by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In order to be entitled to relief, however, the defendant must further establish prejudice by showing that there is a reasonable possibility that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
States the two-prong test for ineffective assistance claims from Strickland v. Washington
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShannon Grayson was convicted at trial. His trial counsel failed to call alibi witnesses who could have testified on his behalf. In post-conviction pr…
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
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting post-conviction relief to the appellee, Shannon Grayson, in the form of a new trial on the basis that his trial counsel was ineffective. We remand this case to the trial court to *563make a determination regarding whether the defense attorney’s purported ineffective assistance actually prejudiced the defense.
In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, a criminal defendant must show specific acts or omissions of counsel that were so serious that the attorney was not functioning as counsel guaranteed to the defendant by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In order to be entitled to relief, however, the defendant must further establish prejudice by showing that there is a reasonable possibility that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852 (Fla.2007) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).
Here, the trial court clearly made a determination that trial counsel’s efforts were deficient, and that holding is supported by sufficient evidence. More specifically, the court concluded that Mr. Grayson’s defense counsel failed to call alibi witnesses, and that the failure to do so was deficient. What the trial court did not do was to make a determination of prejudice before ordering a new trial. When the trial court examined the prejudice prong of Strickland, it stated only that it did not know if in fact the “outcome” would have been different if the alibi witnesses would have been known and could have testified at trial.
Before post-conviction relief can be granted based on inadequacy of trial counsel the trial court must make a ruling on the prejudice prong of Strickland. It did not do so. Accordingly, we reverse this case and remand to the trial court to enable it to make the necessary ruling.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
GRIFFIN, MONACO and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bridges v. State, 81 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…or counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Connor v. State, 979 So. 2d 852 (Fla.2007) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687,104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). State v. Grayson, 74 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). In ground one, the defendant alleged two issues of ineffective assistance of counsel. First, he alleged that when the State filed a notice of Williams1 rule evidence the day before trial, defense counsel unreasonably failed to…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Seburt Nelson Connor v. State, 979 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2007)
- Gianni Passino v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)