RICHARD V. FLETCHER
v.
STATE
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.
Trial counsel's failure to call two witnesses who would have testified about the victim's mother's motive to induce false allegations constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel warranting a new trial.
[1] The failure to call a witness who could cast doubt on the defendant's guilt constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. …
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“Of course, the legal basis would have been that the testimony was relevant, going to the issues of bias and motive of the victim's mother and the victim herself, which were central to Appellant's defense at trial, a defense that would have cast doubt on Appellant's guilt if believed by the jury.”
Court explaining why counsel's failure to oppose the motion in limine was deficient performance
Fletcher was convicted of lewd or lascivious molestation based primarily on the victim's and victim's mother's testimony with no physical evidence. At…
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 Failure To Call Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
RICHARD V. FLETCHER,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-432
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 23, 2018
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Renee A. Roche, Judge.
Paula C. Coffman, Orlando, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Richard V. Fletcher, appeals the denial of his postconviction motion, after an evidentiary hearing, alleging that his counsel was ineffective for failing to call two witnesses who would have offered substantial testimony in support of his primary theory of defense. Specifically, at the evidentiary hearing, Appellant offered two witnesses who provided testimony to support the defense theory that the victim’s mother, Appellant’s
2 then wife, induced the victim to fabricate the allegations of lewd or lascivious molestation against Appellant so that the mother could engage in a relationship with Appellant’s friend. We reverse for a new trial. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are evaluated pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). First, the claimant must demonstrate that his counsel was deficient by identifying particular acts or omissions of his trial counsel that are outside the wide range of reasonably competent performance under prevailing professional standards. Conde v. State, 35 So. 3d 660, 662 (Fla. 2010). Second, the movant must also allege prejudice by demonstrating a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for his trial counsel's allegedly deficient performance. Id. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the proceedings. Id. (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). The failure to call a witness can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if the witness might be able to cast doubt on the defendant's guilt. Gutierrez v. State, 27 So. 3d 192, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Here, the jury’s verdict hinged on crediting the victim’s and the victim’s mother’s testimony as there was no physical evidence of abuse. Without the testimony of two exculpatory witnesses, Appellant was unable to offer evidence to explain his theory of defense, which was alluded to at trial but not developed. Specifically, while defense counsel argued to the jury that the victim’s mother wanted her then-husband, Appellant, out of her and her children’s lives, defense counsel failed to establish a reason why she wanted Appellant out of the way. The two witnesses would have provided testimony to explain that the victim’s mother allegedly wanted Appellant out of her and her children’s
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SAWAYA, EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Gutierrez v. State, 27 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Rory Enrique Conde v. State, 35 So. 3d 660 (Fla. 2010)