From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kornegay v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 2, 2002
826 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding when reviewing the non-summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, the appellate court must give deference to the trial court's finding of facts that are supported by competent, substantial evidence and review the findings of law de novo

Summary of this case from Vaivada v. State
See 3 Summaries

Opinion

Case No. 1D01-2717

Opinion filed October 2, 2002.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County. N. Sanders Sauls, Judge.

James C. Banks of the Law Offices of James C. Banks, P.A., Tallahassee; Theresa A. Marvin, Special Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Thomas D. Winokur, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate sentence, entered following an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(d), which provides that once an evidentiary hearing has been held, the trial court shall "determine the issues, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto." Without making any factual findings, the court concluded that defense counsel's failure to move for judgment of acquittal and for mistrial fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, but that the evidence did not show there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of trial would have been different without such deficient performance.

The two-pronged analysis of whether counsel provided ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), is a mixed question of law and fact. On review, the appellate court must give deference to the trial court's factual findings, and independently review the trial court's legal conclusions. Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 1999). Because the court did not make factual findings at the evidentiary hearing or in the written order, this court cannot independently review the sufficiency of the court's conclusion under the prejudice prong. We direct the court on remand to determine whether it can make the necessary findings and conclusions based upon the record that will show appellant was not entitled to relief.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ERVIN, BOOTH and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

Summaries of

Kornegay v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Oct 2, 2002
826 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

holding when reviewing the non-summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion, the appellate court must give deference to the trial court's finding of facts that are supported by competent, substantial evidence and review the findings of law de novo

Summary of this case from Vaivada v. State

reversing and remanding the order denying the postconviction motion where the "court cannot independently review the sufficiency of the court's conclusion under the prejudice prong" due to a lack of factual findings

Summary of this case from State v. Downs

remanding to the circuit court for factual findings because ineffective-assistance claims present mixed questions of law and fact which require an appellate court to defer to the factual findings of the trial court while independently reviewing its legal conclusions

Summary of this case from Dillbeck v. State
Case details for

Kornegay v. State

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN CHARLES KORNEGAY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Oct 2, 2002

Citations

826 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Vaivada v. State

After consideration of the record and briefs, we must affirm as each of the trial court's findings are…

Thomas v. State

Rather, we remand this case to the circuit court to make the needed findings. See, e.g., Kornegay v. State,…

10 Citing Cases