Kornegay v. State, 1D01-2717.
| Decision Date | 02 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D01-2717.,1D01-2717. |
| Parties | Steven Charles KORNEGAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James C. Banks of the Law Offices of James C. Banks, P.A., Tallahassee; Theresa A. Marvin, Special Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate sentence, entered following an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d), which provides that once an evidentiary hearing has been held, the trial court shall "determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto." Without making any factual findings, the court concluded that defense counsel's failure to move for judgment of acquittal and for mistrial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, but that the evidence did not show there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different without such deficient performance.
The two-pronged analysis of whether counsel provided ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), is a mixed question of law and fact. On review, the appellate court must give deference to the trial court's factual findings, and independently review the trial court's legal conclusions. Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028 (Fla.1999). Because the court did not make factual findings at the evidentiary hearing or in the written order, this court cannot independently review the sufficiency of the court's conclusion under the prejudice prong. We direct the court on remand to determine whether it can make the necessary findings and conclusions based upon the record that will show appellant was not entitled to relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Downs
...the denial of a motion for postconviction relief where the court did not make sufficient factual findings); Kornegay v. State , 826 So. 2d 1081, 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (reversing and remanding the order denying the postconviction motion where the "court cannot independently review the suf......
-
Hunter v. State
...“this court cannot independently review the sufficiency of the court's conclusion under the prejudice prong.” Kornegay v. State, 826 So.2d 1081, 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Therefore, the proper remedy is to direct the trial court on remand to determine whether it can make the necessary findi......
-
Thomas v. State, 1D05-2183.
...postconviction claim. Rather, we remand this case to the circuit court to make the needed findings. See, e.g., Kornegay v. State, 826 So.2d 1081, 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).1 This matter is AFFIRMED in part; and REMANDED in part with directions. On remand, the circuit court is directed to mak......
-
VAIVADA v. State, 1D02-5292.
...briefs, we must affirm as each of the trial court's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Kornegay v. State, 826 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (holding when reviewing the non-summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, the appellate court must give deference to the tria......