ANDY LEE WILLIAMS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A defendant cannot establish prejudice from appellate counsel's failure to raise an issue on direct appeal where the issue was considered and rejected by the appellate court pursuant to Anders review based on the defendant's pro se brief.
[1] A defendant cannot establish prejudice from appellate counsel's failure to raise an issue on direct appeal where the appellate court necessarily considered and evaluated…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Because [Petitioner] argued in his pro se brief on direct appeal [which proceeded under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),] that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial, this claimed error was also necessarily considered, evaluated, and rejected by this court such that we found it unnecessary to order additional briefing of this issue from appellate counsel.”
Court's explanation of why Williams failed to demonstrate prejudice from appellate counsel's performance
Andy Lee Williams filed a petition under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d) alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel during his …
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 Anders V. California Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2025-1335 LT Case No. 16-2021-CF-10901-A _____________________________
ANDY LEE WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent. _____________________________
Petition Alleging Ineffectiveness of Appellate Counsel. A Case of Original Jurisdiction.
Andy Lee Williams, Crawfordville, pro se.
No Appearance for Respondent.
May 23, 2025
PER CURIAM.
The petition filed in this proceeding under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d) alleging that Petitioner’s appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance during the direct appeal of Petitioner’s criminal conviction and sentence is denied. See Moran v. State, 311 So. 3d 892, 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (explaining that, “[b]ecause [Petitioner] argued in his pro se brief on direct appeal [which proceeded under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),] that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial, this
2 claimed error was also necessarily considered, evaluated, and rejected by this court such that we found it unnecessary to order additional briefing of this issue from appellate counsel,” resultingly, “[Petitioner] has failed to demonstrate any measurable prejudice from appellate counsel’s failure to raise this argument on direct appeal”); Morrison v. State, 764 So. 2d 649, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (holding that a defendant cannot establish prejudice from appellate counsel’s failure to raise an issue where the issue was considered by the court in its review pursuant to Anders because it was raised in the defendant’s pro se brief).
PETITION DENIED.
EDWARDS, C.J., LAMBERT and JAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Morrison v. State, 764 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)