Wilson v. Wainwright, Nos. 67190

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtEHRLICH; BOYD; ADKINS
Citation474 So.2d 1162,10 Fla. L. Weekly 390
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 390 Sam WILSON, Jr., Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, etc., et al., Respondents. Sam WILSON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Decision Date15 August 1985
Docket NumberNos. 67190,67204

Page 1162

474 So.2d 1162
10 Fla. L. Weekly 390
Sam WILSON, Jr., Petitioner,
v.
Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, etc., et al., Respondents.
Sam WILSON, Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 67190, 67204.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug. 15, 1985.

Page 1163

Ronald A. Dion of Entin, Schwartz, Dion and Scalfani, North Miami Beach, for petitioner/appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Joy B. Shearer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondents/appellee.

EHRLICH, Justice.

This case is before us on appeal from the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We also have before us a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), (9), Fla. Const.

The facts of this case and the issues raised on direct appeal are contained in this Court's decision in Wilson v. State, 436 So.2d 908 (Fla.1983). This Court granted a stay of execution by order dated June 20, 1985, in order to fully address the merits of these collateral attacks on the legality of the conviction and sentence. We affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to rule 3.850, but we grant the writ of habeas corpus and order appointment of counsel to afford petitioner a new direct appeal before this Court.

Appellant raised ten issues before the trial court in seeking relief pursuant to rule 3.850. The trial court struck five of these issues and parts of two others as improperly urged because they could have been raised on direct appeal. This was entirely proper. Raulerson v. State, 462 So.2d 1085 (Fla.1985). The trial court then ruled that those issues not dismissed did not demonstrate appellant's entitlement to relief, citing the standard enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Those issues involve strategic decisions as to investigation and/or presentation of evidence of prior altercations between the defendant and two of the victims of his attack, the presentation of evidence possibly relevant to mitigation, and the use of a certified legal intern in the preparation and presentation of the defense. Strategic decisions of counsel will not be second-guessed on collateral attack. We find that the use of the legal intern was within the express limitations of such involvement set forth in The Florida Bar Integration Rule Article XVIII, I(A) and V(A)(3). We agree with the trial court that the allegations before it did not constitute a deficient performance which deprived defendant of a "fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable." Strickland, 104 S.Ct. at 2064.

Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief on grounds that his appellate counsel was ineffective. The criteria for proving ineffective assistance of appellate counsel parallel the Strickland standard for ineffective trial counsel: Petitioner must show 1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's performance deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance and 2) the deficiency of that performance compromised the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result. Johnson v. Wainwright, 463 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985). We find that petitioner's allegations fulfill this test and that petitioner is entitled to a new appeal.

Petitioner's meritorious allegations involve the inadequacy of research and briefing of the appeal and the gross ineffectiveness of oral argument. Appellate counsel, R.E. Conner, briefed only five issues in the initial brief on the merits. At no time did he raise or discuss any issue relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's finding of premeditation in either death. This issue was sufficiently apparent from the cold record that the two dissenting justices raised it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
106 practice notes
  • Small v. Commissioner of Correction, No. 17803.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 6 Mayo 2008
    ...(1992); Abdurrahman v. Henderson, 897 F.2d 71, 74 (2d Cir.1990); Gray v. Greer, 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir.1986); Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985); Phillips v. Williams, 276 Ga. 691, 691, 583 S.E.2d 4 (2003); Browning v. State, 120 Nev. 347, 365, 91 P.3d 39 (2004); Stat......
  • Downs v. Moore, No. SC00-2186.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 26 Septiembre 2001
    ...the standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985). Thus, in order to prevail, the "[p]etitioner must show 1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's per......
  • Shere v. Moore, No. SC00-1960.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 12 Septiembre 2002
    ...in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result. Johnson v. Wainwright, 463 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985). Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985). We apply that standard here and conclude, as more fully explained below, that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to......
  • Davis v. State, No. SC02-1424.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 20 Octubre 2005
    ...counsel parallel the Strickland standard for ineffective trial counsel." Rutherford, 774 So.2d at 643 (quoting Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985)). Thus, this Court's ability to grant habeas relief on the basis of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness is limited to those si......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
106 cases
  • Small v. Commissioner of Correction, No. 17803.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 6 Mayo 2008
    ...(1992); Abdurrahman v. Henderson, 897 F.2d 71, 74 (2d Cir.1990); Gray v. Greer, 800 F.2d 644, 646 (7th Cir.1986); Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985); Phillips v. Williams, 276 Ga. 691, 691, 583 S.E.2d 4 (2003); Browning v. State, 120 Nev. 347, 365, 91 P.3d 39 (2004); Stat......
  • Downs v. Moore, No. SC00-2186.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 26 Septiembre 2001
    ...the standards announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985). Thus, in order to prevail, the "[p]etitioner must show 1) specific errors or omissions which show that appellate counsel's per......
  • Shere v. Moore, No. SC00-1960.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 12 Septiembre 2002
    ...in the fairness and correctness of the appellate result. Johnson v. Wainwright, 463 So.2d 207 (Fla.1985). Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985). We apply that standard here and conclude, as more fully explained below, that appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to......
  • Davis v. State, No. SC02-1424.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 20 Octubre 2005
    ...counsel parallel the Strickland standard for ineffective trial counsel." Rutherford, 774 So.2d at 643 (quoting Wilson v. Wainwright, 474 So.2d 1162, 1163 (Fla.1985)). Thus, this Court's ability to grant habeas relief on the basis of appellate counsel's ineffectiveness is limited to those si......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT