EVA MAE MCCRAE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Eva Mae McCrae appealed the denial of her post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at her second-degree murder trial. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the omission of four potential witnesses did not constitute ineffective assistance under Florida's standard that a trial must be a mockery or farce.
The court held that McCrae failed to demonstrate that her attorney did not render competent service. The absence of testimony from the two witnesses did not deny her a fair trial; at most, she did not receive a perfect trial. The trial was not a mockery or farce, which is the standard required to establish ineffective assistance of counsel in Florida.
[1] A defendant seeking post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate that the trial was a mockery or a farce.
[2] A defendant's subjective opinion, based on hindsight, that trial counsel was unprepared is insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel.
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“the test generally employed in Florida in determining whether or not a defendant has received reasonably effective counsel is whether the facts alleged demonstrate that the trial was a mockery or a farce”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCrae was convicted of second-degree murder of her husband. At a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, she claimed her trial counsel was unprepared an…
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 To Mitigate Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
This is an appeal by the.defendant from the denial of a RCrP 3.850 post-conviction motion and also a motion in mitigation of sentence.
Appellant was convicted of second degree murder of her husband. This court af firmed the conviction on appeal. McCrae v. State, Fla.App.1974, 291 So. 2d 17, cert. denied 300 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1974).
Thereafter, she filed her motion to vacate the judgment and to have a new trial and her motion to mitigate a sentence of twenty years imprisonment. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the trial court denied appellant’s motion.
As her sole point on appeal, appellant submits that the motion should be granted because she was denied effective assistance of counsel during her original trial where the record reflects that there were four witnesses who might have been called on her behalf, but who were not, because her trial counsel was not prepared.
Appellant’s trial counsel was not called as a witness at the hearing below, and her conclusion that he was unprepared appears to be her own subjective opinion based on hindsight.
Also, the record reflects that two of the four witnesses actually were called to testify about matters contained in a pre-sentence investigation report which is not really relevant to the issue of alleged incompetent counsel.
The other two witnesses, social workers at Jackson Memorial Hospital, essentially testified that Mrs. McCrea’s husband knew he was suffering from cancer, which depressed him, and also that the appellant was concerned about his condition.
Appellant thus concludes that these witnesses could support her defense that she was attempting to prevent her husband from committing suicide when the gun discharged and killed him.
Appellant concedes that the test generally employed in Florida in determining whether or not a defendant has received reasonably effective counsel is whether the facts alleged demonstrate that the trial was a mockery or a farce. Parker v. State, Fla.App.1974, 295 So. 2d 312; see also, West v. State of Louisiana, 478 F. 2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973).
We do not think the absence of testimony of the two witnesses denied the appellant a fair trial. At most, she did not receive a perfect trial. Frazier v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So. 2d 691.
It is our view, however, that appellant failed to show that her attorney did not render competent service to her. Accordingly, 'the order reviewed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gibson v. State, 351 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1977)…tate, 274 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1973); Silver v. State, 188 So. 2d 300 (Fla.1966). In any event, the alleged incompetence must be such that the trial was reduced to a mockery or a sham. Parker v. State, 295 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); McCrae v. State, 313 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Biggs v. United States, 318 F.Supp. 212 (N.D.Fla. 1970). There is nothing in the record to support such a finding by this court. It is probable that appellant’s counsel offered nothing in mitigation because there was nothing to o…
-
State v. Garmise, 382 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…-appointed counsel for an insolvent criminal defendant at trial constitutes a valid ground for collateral attack of the defendant’s criminal conviction under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. Jackson v. State, 353 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); McCrae v. State, 313 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Parker v. State, 295 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Potts V. State, 242 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Meinsen v. State, 240 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Plymale v. State, 182 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Wade v. State, 177 S…
-
Roth v. State, 479 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…this case may entitle the defendant to [*850] relief. See Collins v. State, 433 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Halpin v. State, 428 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also McMillian v. State, 411 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Cf. McCrae v. State, 313 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (affirming the denial of a Rule 3.850 motion after an evidentiary hearing in which the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was based on defense counsel’s failure to call two witnesses at trial whose testimony would have sup…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Limmie West, III v. State OF La., 478 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973)
- Frazier v. State, 294 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Parker v. State, 295 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- McCREA v. State, 291 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- McCREA v. State, 300 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1974)
- Rayford Hardison v. State, 300 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1974)