Bucherie v. State, 450 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). · Go Syfert
Bucherie v. State, 450 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John S. BUCHERIE
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 83-315.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
May 9, 1984.
Published opinion
450 So. 2d 882
1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13096
Michael Salnick of Kohl, Springer, Springer, Mighdoll & Salnick, West Palm Beach, for appellant., Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Lydia M. Valenti and Richard G. Bartmon, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appel-lee.
Anstead, Bera, Letts, Nek.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion to vacate judgment and sentence. The motion was based upon appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at his jury trial which was held in June, 1981. Appellant was charged with and convicted of robbery with a weapon, for which he received a nine-year sentence. He appealed the judgment and sentence in 1982, and this court affirmed without an opinion. Appellant then made his 3.850 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Eventually, an evidentiary hearing was held, at which numerous witnesses testified. The trial court issued an order finding that trial counsel had been incompetent, but that the deficiencies did not affect the outcome of the trial. We reverse.

Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981), provides a four-step procedure to be used in determining whether or not an individual has received effective assistance of counsel in accordance with the constitutional guaranties. In this case, the defendant clearly satisfied the first two steps. The trial court concluded that trial counsel had been ineffective, but this simply did not affect the outcome of the trial. It is never possible to know precisely what will affect a jury’s determination of guilt or innocence. It is only necessary that the defendant show a substantial deficiency which “presents a prima facie showing of prejudice.”

We conclude, after a -thorough review of the record, that the defendant did make a prima facie showing of prejudice, and the trial court’s order denying 3.850 relief is therefore vacated and the matter[*883] remanded for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and LETTS and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur.