Sierra v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. State

    360 So. 3d 809 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)

    Thus, it is an invasion of the jury's exclusive province for one witness to offer his personal view on the credibility of a fellow witness." Sierra v. State, 230 So.3d 48, 51-52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (citation omitted) (quoting Page v. State, 733 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). Moreover, "[w]hen a police officer, who is generally regarded by the jury as disinterested and objective and therefore highly credible, is the corroborating witness, the danger of improperly influencing the jury becomes particularly grave."

  2. Johns v. State

    299 So. 3d 629 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)

    Trial counsel's performance, however, is measured by an objective standard. Sierra v. State , 230 So. 3d 48, 51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). This matter is remanded for a de novo evidentiary hearing before a new judge, who should apply Strickland to determine whether counsel was deficient and if Johns was prejudiced as a result.

  3. Floyd v. State

    299 So. 3d 594 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    " (quoting Crossley v. State, 596 So. 2d 447, 450 (Fla. 1992) )). The testimony elicited by trial counsel was not only that Floyd had a prior conviction for armed sexual battery; the testimony was that Floyd had a prior conviction for the armed sexual battery of S.D. Cf. Sierra v. State, 230 So. 3d 48, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("[A]lthough the prohibitions on civilians vouching for a victim's credibility have not been treated as harshly by the courts, such testimony can still be harmful error[.]" (second alteration in original) (quoting Cavaliere v. State, 147 So. 3d 628, 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) )).

  4. Campbell v. State

    247 So. 3d 102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 10 times
    Finding the testimony was exculpatory where it would have shown the defendant was not the only person in the car where the drugs were discovered

    "The benchmark for judging claims of ineffectiveness ... is whether the conduct of counsel ‘so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.’ " Sierra v. State, 230 So.3d 48, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Cabrera v. State, 766 So.2d 1131, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) ); see also Balmori v. State, 985 So.2d 646, 649 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reiterating that the deficient performance "must further be demonstrated to have so affected the fairness and reliability of the proceeding that confidence in the outcome is undermined" (quoting Maxwell v. Wainwright, 490 So.2d 927, 932 (Fla. 1986) ) ). "In a case like this one, which turns on counsel's omissions, both the [postconviction] and appellate courts must evaluate the circumstances from the standpoint of what might have been." Lee v. State, 899 So.2d 348, 354 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).