JAVARUS MORGAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different, and relief cannot be based on speculation and conjecture.
[1] To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probab…
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 intelligence“Relief on ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be based on more than speculation and conjecture.”
Court's statement of the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims
Javarus Morgan appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County, raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Florida Rule of A…
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 Strickland V. Washington Two-Prong Test cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1862 Lower Tribunal No. F01-21587B ________________
Javarus Morgan, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Laura Shearon Cruz, Judge.
Javarus Morgan, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Henry v. State, 948 So. 2d 609, 621 (Fla. 2006) (“Strickland requires defendants to show ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ . . . [A] ‘reasonable probability’ is a ‘probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984))); see also Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 996 (Fla. 2009) (“The Court need not reach both Strickland prongs in every case. ‘[W]hen a defendant fails to make a showing as to one prong, it is not necessary to delve into whether he has made a showing as to the other prong.’” (quoting Preston v. State, 970 So. 2d 789, 803 (Fla. 2007))); State v. Larzelere, 979 So. 2d 195, 211 (Fla. 2008) (“Larzelere has not shown counsel to be ineffective for not calling a concrete expert because she had not demonstrated what an individual qualified as a concrete expert would have testified to in this case or how such testimony would cast doubt on her guilt.”); Connor v. State, 979 So. 2d 852, 863 (Fla. 2007) (“Relief on ineffective assistance of counsel claims must be based on more than speculation and conjecture.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Preston v. State, 970 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2007)
- Henry v. State, 948 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 2006)
- Seburt Nelson Connor v. State, 979 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2007)
- State v. Larzelere, 979 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2008)