ROBINSON CALIXTE
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's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails when the defendant does not establish both that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced the defense.
[1] To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must demonstrate both that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced t…
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“A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction . . . has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.”
Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims
Robinson Calixte appealed from a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County, raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Florida Rule of…
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 Adversarial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 2, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2552 Lower Tribunal No. F17-9011
Robinson Calixte, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge.
Robinson Calixte, in proper person.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Katryna Santa Cruz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before LINDSEY, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (“A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction . . . has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction . . . resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.”); Washington v. State, 835 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 2002) (“Our review of the record shows that the circuit court's findings of fact on this claim are supported by competent substantial evidence and its ultimate conclusions on the deficiency and prejudice prongs comport with the law. . . . We find no merit to this claim.”); Callaway v. State, 202 So. 3d 901, 902 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("Because [the defendant] failed to . . . demonstrate that the alleged deficient performance of his trial counsel resulted in any prejudice, we affirm. It is not enough for the defendant to show that the errors had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceedings. Rather, the defendant
must show that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the result of the proceedings would have been different.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Tompkins v. State, 386 So. 2d 597, 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) ("[W]e find appellant's contention that his right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the trial court's permitting state's witnesses to appear in prison attire is without merit. If there was any prejudice, it was against the state, since the fact of the state's witnesses' inmate status would affect the credibility of their testimony[.]”); Moore v. State, 939 So. 2d 1116, 1117-18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The purpose of voir dire is to obtain a fair and impartial jury, whose minds are free of all interest, bias, or prejudice. . . . Hypothetical questions, designed to determine whether the jurors could correctly apply the law, are permissible." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Doyall Tompkins v. State, 386 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Washington v. State, 835 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 2002)
- Callaway v. State, 202 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Moore v. State, 939 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)