ZACHARY O. SMITH, 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.
The court held that the summary denial of claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to impeach the victim's testimony was improper and requires an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A postconviction court must grant an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel if the record does not conclusively refute the movant's allegatio…
[2] Failure to investigate and impeach the sole eyewitness's testimony can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly when the victim's testimony is the only…
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 intelligenceZachary Smith appealed the denial of his postconviction motion, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and impeach the v…
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 Impeachment Of Witness cases and more on FLexlaw
Zachary Smith appeals the denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of his motion on all grounds except for the summary denial of his claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to impeach the victim’s testimony.
The postconviction court summarily denied Mr. Smith’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and impeach the victim’s account of the acts underlying the charge of lewd and lascivious assault of a minor under the age of sixteen. Mr. Smith also argues that the trial court erred in denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for not investigating and examining the victim’s statements to others after, the assault. The State did not present any eyewitnesses to or physical evidence of the crime. Because the victim’s testimony was the only evidence connecting Mr. Smith to this crime, her trustworthiness was critical to the State’s case.
The record excerpts the court attached to its order do not conclusively refute Mr. Smith’s claim that he suffered prejudice because trial counsel was ineffective for not impeaching the only eyewitness’s statements. See Pierce v. State, 137 So.3d 578, 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (reversing summary denial of postconviction motion, where record did not conclusively refute movant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the State’s only witness — the victim — with' prior inconsistent statements); Bulley v. State, 900 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (reversing summary denial of postconvictioh motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel that “identified the witnesses, provided what' their testimony would have been, stated that they were available to testify, and alleged that he was prejudiced by their absence at trial”).
Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of these grounds in Mr. Smith’s motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing. In all other respects, the post-conviction court’s order'is affirmed.
ALTENBERND, CRENSHAW, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Landmark Funding, Inc v. Chaluts, 213 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). As such, when passing on a motion to dismiss, the trial court “is limited to considering the four corners of the complaint along with the attachments incorporated into the complaint.” Neapolitan Enters., LLC v. City of Naples, 185 So. 3d 585, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); see also McWhirter, 704 So. 2d at 215 (“[T]he trial court must confine itself strictly to the allegations within the four corners of the complaint.”). Under the Florida Revised Limited Liability Company Act, the nominal pla…
-
Thews v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 210 So. 3d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…SE Affirmative defenses such as res judicata must be typically raised in an answer, not in a motion to dismiss, unless the allegations of the complaint demonstrate that the action is barred by res judicata. Neapolitan Enters. LLC v. City of Naples, 185 So. 3d 585, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). Further, this court reviews an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice using a de novo standard of review, because a motion to dismiss examines the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not factual determinations. Id. In r…
-
Enlow v. E.C. Scott Wright, P.A., 274 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bulley v. State, 900 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Pierce v. State, 137 So. 3d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)