Francky Louis v. the State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJanuary 2, 2020
Docket3D19-0194
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 2, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-194
Lower Tribunal No. 14-19599A
________________
Francky Louis,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue Venzer,
Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Paul DeSousa and James
Odell, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
In his pro se motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule
of Criminal Procedure 3.850, appellant Francky Louis alleged five grounds to vacate
his convictions for attempted first-degree murder and armed burglary. At the
evidentiary hearing on his motion, appellant was represented by counsel who
conceded Grounds One, Two, Three and Five. The hearing proceeded on Ground
Four, wherein appellant asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
cross-examine the victim about the number of beers the victim had consumed during
the evening of the crime.
After conducting the evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that
appellant’s trial counsel’s decision not to cross-examine the victim on the point was
trial strategy. The trial court then entered the challenged order denying appellant’s
post-conviction motion. We affirm because the trial court’s order is supported by
competent, substantial evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing. Williams v.
State, 808 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
As stipulated by the parties, the trial court’s order contains a scrivener’s error.
The order misidentifies as Ground Five – rather than Ground Four – the ground upon
which the trial court conducted the evidentiary hearing. While we affirm the order,
we remand to the trial court to correct the scrivener’s error.
Affirmed; remanded to correct scrivener’s error.
2