Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2012 » 5D11-3538 David Bridges v. State
5D11-3538 David Bridges v. State
State: Florida
Court: Florida Fifth District Court
Docket No: 5D11-3538
Case Date: 03/05/2012
Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012

DAVID WAYNE BRIDGES, JR., Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed March 9, 2012 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumter County, William H. Hallman, III, Judge. David W. Bridges, Jr., Quincy, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney Tallahassee, and Megan Assistant Attorney General, Beach, for Appellee. General, Saillant, Daytona Case No. 5D11-3538

PALMER, J. David Wayne Bridges, Jr. (defendant) appeals the trial court's order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to rule 3.850 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Determining that the trial court erred in denying ground one of the motion, we reverse as to that ground. In order to demonstrate ineffective assistance of trial counsel under rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, a criminal defendant must show specific acts or omissions of counsel that were so serious that the attorney

was not functioning as counsel guaranteed to the defendant by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. In order to be entitled to relief, however, the defendant must further establish prejudice by showing that there is a reasonable possibility that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See Connor v. State, 979 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 2007) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). State v. Grayson, 74 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). In ground one, the defendant alleged two issues of ineffective assistance of counsel. First, he alleged that when the State filed a notice of Williams1 rule evidence the day before trial, defense counsel unreasonably failed to move to exclude the evidence or for a continuance to investigate it. Second, the defendant alleged that his counsel unreasonably advised him that he could not win at trial because of jury bias, and that the trial judge would harshly sentence him if he went to trial and was convicted. The defendant alleged that absent counsel's ineffectiveness, he would not have pled nolo contendere to the charges of lewd or lascivious molestation, but would have instead gone to trial. As to the first issue, the defendant alleged that the State's Williams rule evidence would have been excluded because it was not similar enough to the charged offenses. In support, he alleged the following facts. In the instant case, he was accused of molesting three children while watching a movie with two other adults present. The children were his stepdaughters and were under his custodial authority. He was 29 years old, at least 18 years older than any of the children. In contrast, the Williams rule

See Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (authorizing admission of similar fact evidence); see also
Download 5D11-3538 David Bridges v. State.pdf

Florida Law

Florida State Laws
Florida State
    > Florida Counties
    > Florida Senators
    > Florida Zip Codes
Florida Tax
Florida Labor Laws
Florida Agencies
    > Florida DMV

Comments

Tips