JOHN MATTHEW JOHNSON
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.
# BRIEF In *Johnson v. State of Florida*, the First District Court of Appeal held that a defendant established a facially sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under *Strickland v. Washington* when his counsel allegedly failed to inform him of weaknesses in the State's evidence—specifically the absence of eyewitnesses to the defendant possessing a firearm and potential evidentiary defects—before recommending he accept a plea agreement, warranting reversal and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A defendant in a postconviction proceeding bears the burden of establishing a prima-facie case based upon a legally valid claim, and conclusory allegations are insufficie…
[2] When a postconviction motion is facially insufficient, the defendant is entitled to one opportunity to amend the motion.
Previewing 2 of 5 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© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deficient Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D19-0507 _____________________________
JOHN MATTHEW JOHNSON,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Angela M. Cox, Judge.
July 23, 2019 B.L. THOMAS, J.
Appellant challenges the summary denial of his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. He asserts two grounds for relief. We affirm the trial court’s summary denial of relief on the second of those two grounds without discussion. However, in Appellant’s first ground he alleged that his counsel was ineffective for advising him to take the plea agreement without informing him of the weakness in the State’s evidence. The asserted weakness in the State’s evidence included that the State allegedly had no witnesses who saw anyone with a firearm, much less saw the Appellant with a firearm, and could not enter the firearm, shell casing, or bullet projectile as evidence under section 90.401, Florida Statutes. Appellant also asserted that had he known of the State’s allegedly weak case, he would have never taken the plea agreement as his counsel recommended.
2
These assertions, taken as true, establish a facially sufficient claim of deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington*. Hill v. State, 258 So. 3d 577, 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Marshall v. State, 540 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Golden v. State, 509 So. 2d 1149, 1153-54 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this ground.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
OSTERHAUS and ROWE, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
John Matthew Johnson, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Thomas H. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
* 466 U.S. 668, 678 (1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Golden v. State, 509 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Hill v. State, 258 So. 3d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
- Marshall v. State, 540 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)