LATROY BOUKNIGHT, 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.
LaTroy Bouknight appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel on three grounds: failure to renew a change of venue motion, failure to request a jury instruction on alibi, and improper cross-examination strategy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rejection of all three claims.
None of the three ineffective assistance of counsel claims had merit. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue when the jury was selected without difficulty and all seated jurors demonstrated impartiality. The trial court's factual findings that the absent jury instruction and cross-examination strategy were legitimate trial decisions were not disturbed on appeal.
[1] Counsel is not ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue when a jury is selected without undue difficulties.
[2] Factual findings made by a trial court after an evidentiary hearing are not disturbed on appeal when supported by detailed findings, record references, and applicable cas…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“counsel is not ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue when the jury is selected without undue difficulties”
Establishes the legal standard for change of venue claims under Dillbeck, rejecting Bouknight's first ineffective assistance argument
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBouknight was convicted after trial. The trial court conducted jury selection in which potential jurors who had awareness of pretrial publicity were i…
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 Motion For Change Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
LaTroy Bouknight appeals the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure upon its rejection of Bouknight’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
On the first issue, Bouknight claimed that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to renew the motion for change of venue. No evidentiary hearing was held on this point, but the trial court made detailed references to the record and attached to its order portions of the record refuting Bouknight’s allegations that pretrial publicity had made it impossible to seat an unbiased jury. Jurors who indicated any awareness of pre-trial publicity were individually interviewed by counsel and the jurors selected for the case each stated that they had no preconceived opinions of the defendant’s guilt or innocence and would try the case based only on the evidence presented to them. The trial court correctly relied on Dillbeck v. State, 964 So.2d 95 (Fla.2007) in ruling that counsel is not ineffective for failing to move for a change of venue when the jury is selected without undue difficulties.
An evidentiary hearing was conducted to consider the other two grounds upon which Bouknight alleged that defense counsel had been ineffective. Accordingly, the trial court’s factual findings — that the absence of a request for a jury instruction on alibis and counsel’s cross-examination of a witness for the state regarding the defendant’s warrant for a separate crime were trial strategies — are not disturbed on appeal. The trial court’s order on these points made detailed findings, contained numerous references to the record in support, with copies attached as Exhibits, and recited the applicable case law relied upon.
Because Appellant has not shown any error in the trial court’s order, the order on appeal is AFFIRMED.
DAVIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.