Knight standard in Florida

1984After the issuance of Strickland , Justice Adkins, writing for the Florida Supreme Court, said: "[w]e are of the opinion that [the Strickland ] test does not differ significantly with the Knight standard of `a likelihood that the deficient conduct affected the outcome of the court proceedings.'" Jackson v. State, 452 So.2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1984).

1984After the issuance of Strickland , Justice Adkins, writing for the Florida Supreme Court, said: "[w]e are of the opinion that [the Strickland ] test does not differ significantly with the Knight standard of `a likelihood that the deficient conduct affected the outcome of the court proceedings.'" Jackson v. State, 452 So.2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1984).

1998See also San Martin v. State, 705 So.2d 1337, 1350 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 105 , 142 L.Ed.2d 84 (1998); Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688 (Fla.1996); Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244 (Fla.1995). [8] We also note that the trial court, in considering Knight's objection to Smith presenting a summary of former trial testimony, offered Knight the opportunity to have that testimony read to the jury as an alternative to Smith's presentation.

1998See also San Martin v. State, 705 So.2d 1337, 1350 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 105 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1998); Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688 (Fla.1996); Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244 (Fla.1995). [8] We also note that the trial court, in considering Knight's objection to Smith presenting a summary of former trial testimony, offered Knight the opportunity to have that testimony read to the jury as an alternative to Smith's presentation.

1998See also San Martin v. State, 705 So.2d 1337, 1350 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 105 , 142 L.Ed.2d 84 (1998); Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688 (Fla.1996); Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244 (Fla.1995). [8] We also note that the trial court, in considering Knight's objection to Smith presenting a summary of former trial testimony, offered Knight the opportunity to have that testimony read to the jury as an alternative to Smith's presentation.

1998See also San Martin v. State, 705 So.2d 1337, 1350 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 105 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (1998); Williamson v. State, 681 So.2d 688 (Fla.1996); Hunter v. State, 660 So.2d 244 (Fla.1995). [8] We also note that the trial court, in considering Knight's objection to Smith presenting a summary of former trial testimony, offered Knight the opportunity to have that testimony read to the jury as an alternative to Smith's presentation.

1984See also Downs v. State, 453 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1984).

1984See also Downs v. State, 453 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 1984).

2026Knight, 76 So. 3d at 885 n.3.

2017Knight, 76 So. 3d at 885 . n.3.

2026Third, Knight’s claim is meritless, as his allegations fail to “(1) establish that the method of execution presents a substantial and imminent risk that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering and (2) identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a significantly less - 18 - severe risk of pain.” Asay v. State, 224 So. 3d 695, 701 (Fla. 2017) (citing Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 877 (2015)).

2026Third, Knight’s claim is meritless, as his allegations fail to “(1) establish that the method of execution presents a substantial and imminent risk that is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering and (2) identify a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a significantly less - 18 - severe risk of pain.” Asay v. State, 224 So. 3d 695, 701 (Fla. 2017) (citing Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863, 877 (2015)).

2017This appeal followed. “[A]n information is fundamentally defective where it fails to cite a specific section and totally omits an essential element of the crime.” Weatherspoon v. State, 214 So. 3d 578, 584 (Fla. 2017) (quoting Figueroa v. State, 84 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)); State v. Gray, 435 So. 2d 816, 818 (Fla. 1983).

2017This appeal followed. “[A]n information is fundamentally defective where it fails to cite a specific section and totally omits an essential element of the crime.” Weatherspoon v. State, 214 So. 3d 578, 584 (Fla. 2017) (quoting Figueroa v. State, 84 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)); State v. Gray, 435 So. 2d 816, 818 (Fla. 1983).

2017See, e.g., Banks v. State, 150 So. 3d 797 , 800- 01 (Fla. 2014); Chavez v. State, 132 So. 3d 826, 831 (Fla. 2014).

2017See, e.g., Banks v. State, 150 So.3d 797, 800-01 (Fla. 2014); Chavez v. State, 132 So.3d 826, 831 (Fla. 2014).

2017See, e.g., Banks v. State, 150 So. 3d 797 , 800- 01 (Fla. 2014); Chavez v. State, 132 So. 3d 826, 831 (Fla. 2014).

2017See, e.g., Banks v. State, 150 So.3d 797, 800-01 (Fla. 2014); Chavez v. State, 132 So.3d 826, 831 (Fla. 2014).

2016See Muhammad v. State, 603 So.2d 488, 489 (Fla. 1992) (finding claims procedurally barred because already raised and rejected on direct appeal).

2016Id. at 489 (finding claims procedurally barred because “the issue could have or should have been raised on direct appeal.”).

2016See Clark v. State, 35 So.3d 880, 886 (Fla. 2010) (“[A]s long as the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, this Court will not ‘substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.’ ” (quoting McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948 , 954 n.4 (Fla. 2002))).

2016State v. Coney, 845 So.2d 120, 137 (Fla. 2003) (“To the extent Coney’s claims on this point are claims of trial .court error, such *14 claims generally are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion.”); Bruno, 807 So.2d at 63 (“A claim of trial court error generally can be raised on direct appeal but not in a rule 3.850 motion, and a claim of ineffectiveness generally can be raised in a rule 3.850 motion but not on direct appeal.”) (footnote omitted).

2016See Clark v. State, 35 So.3d 880, 886 (Fla. 2010) (“[A]s long as the trial court’s findings are supported by competent substantial evidence, this Court will not ‘substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.’ ” (quoting McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948 , 954 n.4 (Fla. 2002))).

2016State v. Coney, 845 So.2d 120, 137 (Fla. 2003) (“To the extent Coney’s claims on this point are claims of trial .court error, such *14 claims generally are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion.”); Bruno, 807 So.2d at 63 (“A claim of trial court error generally can be raised on direct appeal but not in a rule 3.850 motion, and a claim of ineffectiveness generally can be raised in a rule 3.850 motion but not on direct appeal.”) (footnote omitted).

2016Greenwade v. State, 124 So. 3d 215, 220 (Fla. 2013).

2016Greenwade v. State, 124 So.3d 215, 220 (Fla.2013).

2000See also Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340 , 1342 n. 4, 1347 n. 10 (Fla.1997) (rejecting defendant's claim that death sentence could not be carried out due to alleged unconstitutional delay), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 944 , 119 S.Ct. 366 , 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998); State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 94-95 (rejecting capital defendant's claim that it would violate the Eighth Amendment to execute him after his lengthy stay on death row), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999).

2000See also Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340 , 1342 n. 4, 1347 n. 10 (Fla.1997) (rejecting defendant's claim that death sentence could not be carried out due to alleged unconstitutional delay), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 944 , 119 S.Ct. 366 , 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998); State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 94-95 (rejecting capital defendant's claim that it would violate the Eighth Amendment to execute him after his lengthy stay on death row), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999).

2000See also Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340 , 1342 n. 4, 1347 n. 10 (Fla.1997) (rejecting defendant's claim that death sentence could not be carried out due to alleged unconstitutional delay), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 944 , 119 S.Ct. 366 , 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998); State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 94-95 (rejecting capital defendant's claim that it would violate the Eighth Amendment to execute him after his lengthy stay on death row), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999).

2000See also Elledge v. State, 706 So.2d 1340 , 1342 n. 4, 1347 n. 10 (Fla.1997) (rejecting defendant's claim that death sentence could not be carried out due to alleged unconstitutional delay), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 944 , 119 S.Ct. 366 , 142 L.Ed.2d 303 (1998); State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553 , 591 N.W.2d 86, 94-95 (rejecting capital defendant's claim that it would violate the Eighth Amendment to execute him after his lengthy stay on death row), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 990 , 120 S.Ct. 459 , 145 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999).