Williamson v. State, 89-2238
| Decision Date | 16 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2238,89-2238 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1032 William Edward WILLIAMSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William Edward Williamson, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
William Edward Williamson appeals the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief in which he alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 1 Of the seven points raised in this appeal, only three were presented to the trial court: (1) trial counsel failed to investigate, locate, depose and call unnamed, but identifiable, witnesses for trial; (2) trial counsel failed to investigate and discover that the victim was coached by her maternal grandfather; (3) trial counsel failed to object to the victim's closed-circuit television testimony. 2 We hold that the trial court correctly found the motion facially insufficient as it related to the first and second allegations for relief. However, we find that Williamson stated a cognizable claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel with respect to the third allegation. We reverse and remand with directions that the court properly comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Williamson's failure to allege the identities of the uncalled witnesses, and his failure to state whether those witnesses were available for trial, rendered the first and second allegations facially insufficient. See Robinson v. State, 516 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Attached to Williamson's initial brief are affidavits of the uncalled witnesses, stating that defense counsel told them to stay home from trial. Williamson also attempts to amend his initial brief by written motion in which he identifies the uncalled witnesses, asserts that they were available for trial and describes their testimony. However, Williamson did not present this information to the trial court. Under these circumstances, neither the affidavits nor the motion to amend may be considered by this court in reviewing the post-conviction motion. See Russell v. State, 521 So.2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Robinson; McCorkle v. State, 419 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
With respect to Williamson's allegation that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the use of the closed circuit television procedure, the State concedes that defense counsel did not object to the procedure. The State contends, however, that an objection to the closed-circuit procedure would have been unavailing in light of the constitutionality of the statute authorizing the procedure. The State also contends that Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988), which rejected the use of a screen at trial to block a child witness' view of the accused defendant, was decided after Williamson's trial and, therefore, defense counsel was not required to anticipate that decision. Because Williamson failed to demonstrate that defense counsel acted in a deficient manner, the State found it unnecessary to address whether any prejudice occurred as a result of defense co...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. State
...not prejudice the outcome of a defendant's trial. See, e.g., Highsmith v. State, 617 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Williamson v. State, 559 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Puig v. State, 636 So.2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Palmer v. State, 683 So.2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA The Second District has h......
-
Thornburg v. State, 91-863
...relief. Boutwell v. State, 563 So.2d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Shaffner v. State, 562 So.2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Williamson v. State, 559 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Among other things, misstatements of counsel as to the consequences of a plea constitute facially sufficient grounds fo......
-
Highsmith v. State, 92-2564
...testify--not that the named witness would testify willingly. See Smith v. State, 601 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Williamson v. State, 559 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Robinson v. State, 516 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA In Sorgman and Majewski, this court reviewed allegations which are the fu......
-
Ramos v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
...trial, and (4) that the witness was available to testify. Highsmith v. State, 617 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Williamson v. State, 559 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Ramos failed to state in his post-conviction motion that the victim's landlord was available for trial, and, for that re......