Moore v. State, 458 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Moore v. State, 458 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Laramore v. State (fladistctapp, 1997-10-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laramore v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
See Smith v. State, 697 So.2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (in denying an appellant's claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, "it is within the province of the finder of fact `to rely upon the testimony found by it to be worthy of belief and to reject such testimony found by it to be untrue' ") (quoting I.R. v. State, 385 So.2d 686, 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)); Moore v. State, 458 So.2d 61, 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (during hearing on 3.850 motion, trial court may reject defendant's testimony in favor of conflicting testimony of counsel); Ballard v. State, 200 So.2d 597, 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (t…
discussed Cited "see" Anderson v. Jones
M.D. Fla. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. State, 458 So. 2d 61, 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (during hearing on 3.850 motion trial court may reject defendant’s testimony in favor of conflicting testimony of counsel); Ballard v. State, 200 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (trial court is entitled to deny motion for postconviction relief based on trial counsel’s testimony).
discussed Cited "see" Eduardo Santiago, Jr. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. State, 458 So. 2d 61, 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (recognizing that at a rule 3.850 evidentiary hearing, the trial court is entitled to reject the defendant’s testimony in favor of the conflicting testimony of trial counsel). 4
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lawrence C. MOORE, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
83-1826.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct 23, 1984.
458 So. 2d 61
Schwartz, C.J., and Hubbart and Ferguson.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

Gold & Fox and Myron M. Gold, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Randi B. Klayman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Lawrence C. Moore appeals the denial of his motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.850. He claimed below that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from his court-appointed attorney at trial because the said attorney failed to call certain alibi witnesses, failed to call the defendant himself as a witness, and committed sundry other errors. The trial court conducted a full evidentiary hearing and denied the motion.

We have carefully examined the briefs and record in this case and conclude that no showing of ineffective assistance of counsel was made in this cause. Counsel declined to call the alibi defense witnesses for sound tactical reasons. Counsel also had a sound basis for advising the defendant not to testify at trial, which advice the defendant voluntarily followed. We recognize that the defendant gave contrary testimony at the hearing below, but the trial court was privileged to reject this testimony in favor of the conflicting testimony of counsel. Finally, the other claimed errors of counsel do not, in our view, rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Strickland v. Washington, ___ U.S. ___, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Morgan v. State (Fla. 1984) (case no. 63,679, opinion filed September 11, 1984) [9 FLW 428]; Adams v. State, 456 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1984); Shriner v. State, 452 So.2d 929 (Fla. 1984); Jackson v. State, 452 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1984); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981).

Affirmed.