KORIS JENNINGS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Koris Jennings challenged his sexual battery convictions through a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed and remanded on one claim—that counsel misinformed him about impeachment through prior crimes—finding the allegation facially sufficient for an evidentiary hearing under Strickland v. Washington, while affirming the denial of his other claims.
The court held that Jennings's claim of ineffective counsel regarding the impeachment advice was sufficiently pleaded and entitled him to an evidentiary hearing if record attachments do not refute the claim, applying the two-prong Strickland test. However, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of his other postconviction claims.
[1] A postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must establish both deficient performance and prejudice.
[2] Advice from trial counsel that testifying would guarantee conviction due to prior criminal history may constitute deficient performance.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The advice allegedly tendered by Jennings' attorney falls below the level of adequacy which insures a criminal defendant a reasonably fair trial.”
Establishes that counsel's false advice about impeachment evidence violated the performance prong of Strickland.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJennings was convicted of two counts of sexual battery. He asserted under oath that trial counsel persuaded him not to testify, falsely claiming that …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Admissibility Of Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Koris Jennings challenges the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because one of his many claims is facially sufficient, we reverse and remand on that issue only. In all other respects, we affirm.
Jennings was convicted of two counts of sexual battery, which our incomplete record suggests grew out of one criminal episode. In his motion he asserts under oath that he was persuaded by trial counsel that if he elected to testify the violent details of his prior criminal history would be brought before the jury and would guarantee conviction. In fact had he testified the state could have brought out the number of his prior felony convictions, and, if he misrepresented the number, certified copies of the convictions would have been admissible. The details of those' crimes would not constitute legitimate impeachment.
Our supreme court recently decided that claims alleging ineffectiveness of counsel must establish both that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the client was prejudiced thereby, the two prongs established in Strickland, v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla.1996). The advice allegedly tendered by Jennings’ attorney falls below the level of adequacy which insures a criminal defendant a reasonably fair trial.
In his motion Jennings recites that had he testified he would have been able to persuade the jury that the victims had willingly agreed to “party” with him, and that no force to which they testified was used. We note that the defense of consent to a charge of sexual battery is a defense which can often be advanced only through the testimony of the criminal defendant.
It is uncontroverted that Jennings and his co-defendant had been socializing with the victims and that the victims had been drinking and smoking marijuana prior to the incident giving rise to these convictions. Because we do not have the benefit of the whole record, and have no knowledge of the strength of the case against Jennings, it is impossible to determine whether his testimony would “probably” have produced a different result as is required by Strickland. We are unable to pronounce unequivocally that it would not have made a difference under these circumstances.
We hold that his allegation is sufficiently pleaded, and, that if record attachments do not refute the claim, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. State, 965 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 2007)…prior convictions, the only evidence presented as to what Nichols told Bell is Nichols’ testimony at the hearing. Nichols’ statement is an accurate statement of evidentiary law. This case is in contrast to the case cited by Bell, Jennings v. State, 685 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). There, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed for an evidentia-ry hearing the summary denial of Jennings’ claim that trial counsel advised the defendant that if he elected to testify, the violent details of his crimina…
-
Jackson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…of state witnesses. To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim that counsel deprived the defendant of the right to testify, even where no waiver is shown to be of record, a postconviction movant must show more. See, e.g., Jennings v. State, 685 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)(reversing summary denial where defendant would have testified, in sexual battery case, to victim’s consent, a defense which could be advanced only through testimony of defendant); Smith v. State, 700 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…
-
Fitzgerald v. State, 892 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…im of misadvice, we reverse. We affirm all other issues raised on appeal without further discussion. In his motion, Appellant made a facially sufficient claim that his counsel misadvised him about the consequences of testifying. Jennings v. State, 685 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The trial court improperly relied on extra-record information to deny Appellant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. Mims v. State, 672 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s summary denial o…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Oisorio v. State, 676 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 1996)