MARKEITA DAVIS
v.
THE 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.
Markeita Davis appealed her conviction, challenging the trial court's rejection of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on counsel's failure to properly advise her regarding a plea offer. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, applying the established two-part Strickland test and the four-factor Alcorn prejudice analysis.
The trial court's rejection of Davis's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was affirmed. The appellate court found that Davis failed to satisfy the two-part Strickland test requiring both a showing of material errors by counsel and prejudice from that deficient performance amounting to a deprivation of a fair trial.
[1] To establish prejudice in an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on inadequate advice regarding a plea offer, the defendant must demonstrate 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“to show prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability, defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that (1) he or she would have accepted the [plea] offer had counsel advised the defendant correctly, (2) the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer, (3) the court would have accepted the offer, and (4) the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer's terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.”
Establishes the four-factor test for demonstrating prejudice in ineffective assistance cases involving rejected plea offers
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis received a plea offer from the prosecution. Her trial counsel allegedly failed to properly advise her regarding the terms and conditions of this…
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-Part Test (Deficient Performance And Prejudice) cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed May 8, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-2035 Lower Tribunal No. F15-9216
________________
Markeita Davis,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Maria Miranda, Judge. Markeita Davis, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (setting forth the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel requiring a showing of material errors and that such deficient performance prejudiced the defense amounting to a deprivation of the right to a fair trial); Alcorn v.
State, 121 So. 3d 419, 422 (Fla. 2013) (“[T]o show prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability, defined as a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that (1) he or she would have accepted the [plea] offer had counsel advised the defendant correctly, (2) the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer, (3) the court would have accepted the offer, and (4) the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer's terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.”); Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250,
1252 (Fla. 1997) (explaining that in reviewing findings after an evidentiary hearing “this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court” (quotations omitted)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1997)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)