LARRY WILLIAMS, 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.
Larry Williams appealed the summary denial of his rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion challenging his convictions for second degree murder and attempted first degree murder. The appellate court reversed in part, finding that the trial court erred in summarily denying Williams' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to report that a juror was sleeping during critical testimony, but affirmed the denial of his other grounds for relief.
The court reversed the summary denial of the first ground regarding the sleeping juror, finding the trial court erred in denying this claim. The court affirmed the summary denial of the second and fifth grounds without further discussion, and affirmed the denial of the third and fourth grounds as untimely because they were raised for the first time in the amended motion after the two-year filing period had expired.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to notify the court of a sleeping juror may warrant postconviction relief.
[2] A defendant must demonstrate prejudice when alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to address a sleeping juror.
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“Defendant alleged he informed trial counsel numerous times that one of the jurors was sleeping, but counsel failed to bring this information to the trial court's attention so that, in effect, he was convicted by a jury of five.”
Establishes the factual basis of Williams' ineffective assistance claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a jury trial, Williams was convicted of second degree murder with a firearm as to one victim and attempted first degree murder with a firear…
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 Florida Rules Of Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Larry Williams (Defendant) appeals an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
*1103Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty as charged of second degree murder with a firearm as to one victim and attempted first degree murder with a firearm as to another victim.
The first ground of his timely rule 3.850 motion — which was reiterated in his timely amended motion, after the first motion was denied without prejudice to amend — was ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to notify the trial court that a juror was sleeping during critical testimony. Defendant alleged he informed trial counsel numerous times that one of the jurors was sleeping, but counsel failed to bring this information to the trial court’s attention so that, in effect, he was convicted by a jury of five. Defendant argued that he was prejudiced because, had counsel alerted the court, the alternate juror could have taken the sleeping juror’s place. He cited numerous decisions in which this court and others have reversed the summary denial of rule 3.850 motions raising the same claim. See Erlsten v. State, 842 So.2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and cases cited therein.
We agree that the trial court erred in summarily denying this ground for relief. See also Terrell v. State, 9 So.3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Judd v. State, 951 So.2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the summary denial of this ground for further proceedings.
We affirm the summary denial of the second and fifth grounds without further discussion.
Although the trial court denied the third and fourth grounds on the merits, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that these grounds were not untimely because they were raised for the first time in his amended motion, which was filed after the expiration of the two-year period for filing a rule 3.850 motion, and no exception appears to apply. Accordingly, the summary denial of these two grounds is affirmed because they were untimely raised. See Rincon v. State, 996 So.2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (affirming denial of amended postconviction motion that trial court should not have considered because it was untimely); Lanier v. State, 826 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded.
GROSS, TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Virgo v. State, 120 So. 3d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…o. 3d 459, 481 (Fla.2012) (‘Whether trial counsel had a tactical or strategic reason for not pursuing the dismissal of [a sleeping] juror is a determination that usually should require an evidentiary hearing.”) (citation omitted); Williams v. State, 80 So. 3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding for further proceedings the defendant’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to notify the trial court that a juror was sleeping during critical testimony). In ground ten of the defen…
Authorities Cited
- Terrell v. State, 9 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Rincon v. State, 996 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Lanier v. State, 826 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Bradd Dixon v. State, 826 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Antoine Henderson v. State, 842 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Gary v. Crosby, 842 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Judd v. State, 951 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)