Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

549 So. 2d 686

Docket No. 89-576.

Sorgman v. State

Francis M. SORGMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 16, 1989.

Rehearing Denied October 26, 1989.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-08-16

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2004

14 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must first allege a specific omission or overt act upon which his claim is based and such allegations must be in sufficient detail to apprise the court of the names of the witnesses, the substance of their testimony, and how the omission prejudiced the outcome of the trial. (citation omitted) Among the specific acts or omissions of counsel which appellant asserts to prove counsel's ineffectiveness are counsel's failure to interview and call witnesses appellant told counsel about who may have been able to cast doubt on appellant's guilt and counsel's failure to conduct an adequate pre-trial investigation by deposing prospective witnesses including the alleged victim of the kidnapping for which appellant was convicted.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 617 So. 2d 825 - Highsmith v. State

“the failure to call witnesses can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if the witnesses may have been able to cast doubt on the defendant's guilt, and the defendant states in his motion the witnesses' names and the substance of their testimony, and explains how the omission prejudiced the outcome of the trial.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 715 So. 2d 1075 - Marrow v. State

Relies on 487 So. 2d 32 - Majewski v. State · Thames v. State · 502 So. 2d 494 - Swain v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-08-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Francis M. Sorgman, pro se.

¶2No appearance for appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R. Crim.P., and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and without attaching a portion of the record *687 which conclusively shows appellant is entitled to no relief.

¶5Because the trial court denied appellant's motion in summary fashion this court's review is limited to determining whether the motion conclusively shows on its face that appellant is entitled to no relief. Thames v. State,454 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must first allege a specific omission or overt act upon which his claim is based and such allegations must be in sufficient detail to apprise the court of the names of the witnesses, substance of their testimony, and how the omission prejudiced the outcome of the trial. Swain v. State,502 So.2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Among the specific acts or omissions of counsel which appellant asserts to prove counsel's ineffectiveness are counsel's failure to interview and call witnesses appellant told counsel about who may have been able to cast doubt on appellant's guilt and counsel's failure to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation by deposing prospective witnesses including the alleged victim of the kidnapping for which appellant was convicted. (Appellant claims that the alleged kidnapping victim would have testified that she left the crime scene with appellant willingly.) Such failures can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Majewski v. State,487 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

¶6Since we find that appellant's allegations are facially sufficient, we therefore reverse and remand with instructions to reconsider appellant's 3.850 motion and to attach those portions of the file and record which conclusively show that appellant is entitled to no relief, or, alternatively, to grant an evidentiary hearing.

¶7BOOTH, JOANOS and MINER, JJ., concur.

/549/so2d/686 · .json · Public domain