Porter v. State, 93-02989
| Decision Date | 27 October 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-02989,93-02989 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2328 Larry Louis PORTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Larry Porter appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We reverse.
Porter, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. According to the facts set forth in the motion, Porter was present when Kenneth Thornton and Michael Stepp drove to the Palm River area of Hillsborough County to purchase crack cocaine. In what appears to have been a robbery attempt, Stepp was shot and killed. It is Porter's position that Stepp was killed by Adrian Johnson, without Porter's foreknowledge or involvement.
Porter faults his trial attorney for the following omissions:
(1) Failure to utilize the fact that Adrian Johnson, after Miranda warnings, admitted he obtained the gun solely with intent to frighten the two would-be customers after one of them made a racial slur, and that the gun discharged by accident. Porter views this as particularly crucial evidence since the state argued that Johnson produced the gun on Porter's instructions.
(2) Failure to object to inadmissible hearsay testimony by Ronald Blackman. Blackman is described as the party who secreted the gun after the shooting. He allegedly stated, without firsthand knowledge, that Adrian Johnson obtained the gun from Porter.
(3) Failure to impeach witnesses who made inconsistent statements. Porter asserts that he told police he had no involvement in the robbery, and that they acknowledged on deposition that he did not incriminate himself. However, at trial one officer testified Porter admitted "they [Porter and Johnson] were going to rob people." According to Porter, counsel did nothing to reveal the inconsistency.
(4) Counsel failed to move the suppression of the gun. This portion of the motion is not well-taken, in that Porter fails to demonstrate that the recovery of the gun was accomplished by violating his constitutional rights.
The circuit court's order states that Porter has alleged no more than "tactical decisions." While attorneys are indeed given great latitude with regard to strategy and tactics, such a finding generally should be made only after an evidentiary hearing. Dauer v. State, 570 So.2d 314 (Fla. 2d DCA1990). With the exception of the fourth allegation listed above, we believe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...may have been counsel's strategy, but "such a finding generally should be made only after an evidentiary hearing." SeePorter v. State, 626 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)."). Accordingly, this Court previously entered an order concluding that, unless the State showed good cause as to why Grou......
-
Jones v. State
...have been counsel's strategy ... `such a finding generally should be made only after an evidentiary hearing.'" (quoting Porter v. State, 626 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993))). Because it appears the postconviction motion stated two facially sufficient claims not conclusively refuted by the rec......
-
Jones v. State, No. SC06-474 (Fla. 9/4/2008)
...been counsel's strategy . . . `such a finding generally should be made only after an evidentiary hearing.' " (quoting Porter v. State, 626 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993))). Because it appears the postconviction motion stated two facially sufficient claims not conclusively refuted by the reco......
-
Midgette v. State
...should only be made after an evidentiary hearing.” Perez v. State, 128 So.3d 223, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Porter v. State, 626 So.2d 268, 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ); see Glover v. State, 996 So.2d 885, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ; Rutledge v. State, 786 So.2d 1199, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001......