Gorman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gorman v. State

738 So. 2d 966, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8003, 1999 WL 595369

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1130

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 738 So. 2d 966 (Gorman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gorman v. State, 738 So. 2d 966, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8003, 1999 WL 595369 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

WOLF, J.

Joseph Gorman argues that the trial court erred in denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. He asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview a proposed medical witness prior to his trial on capital sexual battery charges. While we agree with appellant that he demonstrated that his counsel’s performance was deficient, no evidence was presented that the doctor would have been available to testify at trial or that he would have testified in a manner favorable to the defense. See State v. Hanania, 715 So.2d 984, 986 (Fla. 2d DCA)(reversing trial court order granting new trial on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on counsel’s failure to call a codefendant and confidential informant as defense witnesses because defendant had failed to present any evidence at evidentiary hearing establishing what the confidential informant’s and codefendant’s testimony would have been), rev. denied, [967]*967727 So.2d 905 (Fla.1998). We, therefore, affirm.

BARFIELD, C.J, and BOOTH, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WOLF, J.

Joseph Gorman argues that the trial court erred in denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 postconviction motion after an evidentiary hearing. He asserts that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interview a proposed medical witness prior to his trial on capital sexual battery charges. While we agree with appellant that he demonstrated that his counsel’s performance was deficient, no evidence was presented that the doctor would have been available to testify at trial or that he would have testified in a manner favorable to the defense. See State v. Hanania, 715 So.2d 984, 986 (Fla. 2d DCA)(reversing trial court order granting new trial on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on counsel’s failure to call a codefendant and confidential informant as defense witnesses because defendant had failed to present any evidence at evidentiary hearing establishing what the confidential informant’s and codefendant’s testimony would have been), rev. denied, [967]*967727 So.2d 905 (Fla.1998). We, therefore, affirm.

BARFIELD, C.J, and BOOTH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 So. 2d 966, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8003, 1999 WL 595369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorman-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack