MICHAEL ROYSTER, 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.
Michael Royster appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion challenging his conviction for strong arm robbery. The court finds that further proceedings are required regarding two claims: that trial counsel was ineffective for conceding guilt to petit theft, and that this concession interfered with his right to testify.
The court holds that further proceedings are required to review Royster's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the guilt concession and its impact on his right to testify. The denial order is affirmed on all other points raised.
“Royster argues that counsel was ineffective having conceded guilt to petit theft during opening and closing statements.”
Establishes the core ineffective assistance claim based on counsel's unsolicited concession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoyster was convicted of strong arm robbery and sentenced to thirty years imprisonment with a fifteen-year mandatory minimum. During trial, counsel co…
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 Concession Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Michael Royster appeals the summary denial of his post-conviction motion. We find that further proceedings are required with regard to two of his claims.
Royster was convicted of strong arm robbery, and sentenced to a prison releas-ee reoffender sentence of thirty years, with a fifteen year mandatory term. In his fourth point Royster argues that counsel was ineffective having conceded guilt to petit theft during opening and closing statements. In his final claim, Royster’s position is that counsel’s concession interfered with Royster’s decision surrounding his right to testify. Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1996).
Specifically, Royster alleges that he wanted to testify that he obtained possession of the property at issue following a drug deal that went bad. In other words, Royster wanted to testify that he did not commit a robbery or theft, but was given the property in exchange for drugs. In light of the concession, he could not testify accordingly. Compare Harris v. State, 768 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
We remand for further review of these related claims. The denial order is affirmed on appellant’s remaining points.
STONE, SHAHOOD and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1996)
- Harris v. State, 768 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)