Williams v. State, 95-3861
| Decision Date | 23 May 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-3861,95-3861 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1233 Keith A. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
No brief filed, for Appellant.
No brief filed, for Appellee.
Keith Williams, the appellant, appeals from an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
In Ground One of his motion, the appellant alleged that trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to strike three jurors who were "obviously prejudicial" to the defense. An allegation that counsel was ineffective for allowing a biased member of the venire to serve on a jury suggests a deficiency of performance sufficient to require either a conclusive rebuttal by the record or an evidentiary hearing. Brown v. State, 654 So.2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gibbs v. State, 604 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The trial court attached a copy of the entire voir dire, which conclusively refutes the appellant's suggestion of improper bias among the three specified jurors. In fact, the record establishes that defense counsel did strike other members of the venire who exhibited an unacceptable bias. Having failed to establish a clear, substantial deficiency in counsel's performance and prejudice to his case, the appellant's first ground for relief was properly denied. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
The appellant was convicted for battery on a law enforcement, which had occurred during an incident at the prison where the appellant was already incarcerated. In Ground Two, the appellant alleged that counsel had been ineffective for failing to impeach the testimony of the state's chief witness. This testimony is alleged to conflict directly with the testimony of the battered victim. Appellant contends that if counsel had challenged the testimony of the state's key witness, a question would have been raised as to the victim's ability to recognize and identify his attacker. The appellant alleged a reasonable probability that counsel's omission affected the outcome. We must take these allegations to be true because the appellate record does not conclusively rebut them. Harich v. State, 484 So.2d 1239, 1241 (Fla.1986). The trial court found that Ground Two is procedurally barred because it could have been raised on direct appeal. We disagree with that holding. Sireci v. State, 469 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla.1985), cert. den., 478 U.S. 1010, 106 S.Ct. 3308, 92 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986); Porter v. State, 626 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Land v. Dixon
... ... corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. Respondent ... (“the State”) answered, providing relevant ... portions of the state court record. Doc. 12. Land ... Supreme Court explained the framework for § 2254 review ... in Williams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362 ... (2000). [ 5 ] Justice O'Connor described the ... ...
-
Secretary of Veteran Affairs v. Tejedo
... ... Co., 687 So.2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). Because this Court did not explicitly state that the summary judgment was reversed only in part, the summary final judgment in Tejedo was ... ...
-
Childers v. State
...that happened during the two robberies, but then testified about what other parties told him about the robberies. See Williams v. State, 673 So.2d 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), citing Porter v. State, 626 So.2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that the appellant made a facially sufficient showing......
-
Haynes v. State
...portions of the record refuting the claims. See Jenkins v. State, 625 So.2d 883, 885 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). See also Williams v. State, 673 So.2d 960, 961-62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). With regard to this point, appellant alleged that his counsel failed to file a motion to suppress, or to otherwise......