Sorey v. State, 84-1258
| Decision Date | 12 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1258,84-1258 |
| Citation | 463 So.2d 1225,10 Fla. L. Weekly 420 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 420 Albert James SOREY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Don S. Cohn, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Neimand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Following a hearing on the issue of the effectiveness of defendant Sorey's trial counsel, the trial court entered an order denying defendant's Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Sorey appeals.
We find no merit in defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on his attorney's failure to file a motion to suppress fingerprint standards and on his failure to object to the prosecutor's closing argument comment on defendant's silence. In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel, * defendant must establish that counsel's performance was unreasonable under the circumstances of the case and that counsel's deficiencies prejudiced him. Downs v. State, 453 So.2d 1102 (Fla.1984); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981). From the record before us, it appears that defense counsel's failure to move to suppress fingerprint standards was not unreasonable under the circumstances since the state could have obtained this evidence through discovery. In addition, the record indicates that the prosecutor's statement during closing argument constituted a fair response to defense counsel's comments rather than an impermissible comment on defendant's silence. Furthermore, there is no showing that counsel's actions prejudiced defendant Sorey.
For these reasons, we affirm the order denying defendant's Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence pursuant to rule 3.850.
Affirmed.
* Sorey's convictions were appealed and affirmed in Sorey v. State, 419 So.2d 810 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walls v. State
...subject. See Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685, 694 (Fla.1995); Dufour v. State, 495 So.2d 154, 160 (Fla.1986); see also Sorey v. State, 463 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim for failure to object to prosecutor's closing argument which constituted a fair re......
-
Stinson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...the category of an "invited response" by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject. See Sorey v. State, 463 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim for failure to object to prosecutor's closing argument which constituted a fair respo......
-
Aguilera v. Jones
...category of an 'invited response' by the preceding argument of defense counsel concerning the same subject." (citing Sorey v. State, 463 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985))). Similarly, the Court finds no error in trial counsel's failure to object to the second statement—that the Petitioner lie......
-
Isidore v. State
...Zanchez v. State, 84 So.3d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (same); Ramos v. State, 559 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (same); Sorey v. State, 463 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (same).Accordingly, we reverse the denial of claims two and three, and remand for further proceedings. With regard to all oth......