EPIFANIO ORTIZ, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel denied because petitioner failed to demonstrate specific juror bias or prejudice from counsel's failure to transcribe voir dire proceedings.
A petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must demonstrate a specific error or omission outside the range of acceptable performance and show that the deficiency compromised the appellate process.
[1] To establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate a specific error or omission falling outside the range of acceptable performance a…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEpifanio Ortiz filed a petition alleging his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to have voir dire jury selection proceedings transcribed fo…
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 Juror Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
PLEUS, J.
Petitioner, Epifanio Ortiz, alleges ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. See generally Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c). This proceeding was abated on June 25, 2003, because of a pending post-conviction motion in the circuit court that was filed in January, 2003. A recent status report showed that the post-conviction motion remains pending in the circuit court, and there is no indication as to when the court will likely issue a final ruling. We therefore lift the order of abatement and proceed to consider the petition on the merits.
Ortiz alleges that appellate counsel was ineffective for not having the voir dire jury selection proceedings transcribed for appellate review. Ortiz, however, makes only the conclusory statement that several of the jurors were biased and should have been removed from the panel. Ortiz does not specifically explain how these jurors evinced their bias. To show ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a petitioner must show a specific error or omission that-falls outside the range of acceptable performance, and demonstrate that the deficiency compromised the appellate process so as to undermine confidence in the correctness of the result. See Lawrence v. State, 831 So. 2d 121 (Fla.2002). Ortiz has not met this burden by relying on an incomplete record and conclusory allegations. As Ortiz has failed to show prejudice, the petition is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
THOMPSON and ORFINGER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prettyman v. State, 951 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…portion of the record. This was recently reaffirmed by the supreme court in Henry v. State, 937 So. 2d 563, 576-77 (Fla.2006). See also Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650 (Fla.2000); Ferguson v. Singletary, 632 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1993); Ortiz v. State, 860 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), review denied, 880 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.2004).3 [*30] In our case, petitioner does not allege that any specific error occurred in the portions of the proceedings below not included in the record on appeal. It was trial counsel who d…
-
Zankman v. State, 992 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…is request was denied. He now contends that “questionable” jurors served on his jury, and that at least one African-American juror was dismissed despite a defense objection without a valid race-neutral reason being given. We held in Ortiz v. State, 860 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), review denied, 880 So. 2d 1212 (Fla.2004), that to show ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate a specific error or omission that falls outside the range of acceptable performance, and demonstr…
-
Marquies Brisbane v. State, 190 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…lls outside the range of acceptable performance, and demonstrate, as well, that the deficiency compromised the appellate process so as to undermine our confidence in the correctness. of the result.” Zankman, 992 So. 2d at 366 (citing Ortiz v. State, 860 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). “In the case of appellate counsel, this means the deficiency must concern an issue which is error affecting the outcome, not simply harmless error.” Freeman, 761 So. 2d at 1069 (quoting Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997, 1001 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Lawrence v. State, 831 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2002)