From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 20, 2002
808 So. 2d 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Opinion

Case No. 3D00-3417.

Opinion filed February 20, 2002.

An appeal under Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 94-28728.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Billie Jan Goldstein, Assistant Public Defender, for appellee.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Roberta G. Mandel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GREEN, SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ.


Mario Alphonso Williams appeals the denial of his post-conviction Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P. motion in which he asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call two defense witnesses in support of his allegations of self-defense at trial. After reviewing competent, substantial evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing conducted below, we conclude that the trial court properly concluded that the actions of Williams' trial counsel were strategic or tactical decisions made with the best interest of Williams in mind. It follows that such decisions do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Valle v. State, 778 So.2d 960 (Fla. 2001); Shere v. State, 742 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1999); Ford v. State, 776 So.2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 20, 2002
808 So. 2d 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARIO ALPHONSO WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 20, 2002

Citations

808 So. 2d 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002)

Citing Cases

Montenegro v. State

Enrique Montenegro appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of…

Louis v. State

The trial court then entered the challenged order denying appellant's post-conviction motion. We affirm…