Clarke v. State, 102 So. 3d 763

Defendant Clarke was charged with Second Degree Murder With a Firearm and Aggravated Battery with a Firearm after a strip club incident where Lark beat Colas and Defendant shot Lark and Vasallo, leading to Lark's death.
Trial evidence showed Lark initially overpowered Colas and beat him severely before shots were fired by Defendant.
On direct appeal, the defense challenged allegedly incorrect defense-of-others jury instructions; the court affirmed per curiam without opinion.
Defendant filed a Rule 3.850 postconviction motion raising four grounds, the last subdivided into eleven subparts, focusing on trial counsel's handling of jury instructions.
The trial court summarily denied the motion as procedurally barred for the first three grounds, citing Chandler and Lowe to argue lack of prejudice for non-fundamental-error on direct appeal.
The appellate court reversed in part on grounds related to jury instructions, remanding for further proceedings, and affirmed in part on other grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for agreeing to use self-defense instructions	Clarke	Clarke	Partially reversed; some claims remanded
Whether inclusion of forcible felony exception and aggressor instruction would negate defense of another	Clarke	Clarke	Remanded for further proceedings; not decided on the merits
Whether the use of the 'and/or' conjunction in referring to victims was objectionable	Clarke	Clarke	Affirmed summary denial; not prejudicially erroneous

Bruno v. State, 807 So.2d 55 (Fla.2001) (ineffectiveness and direct-appeal interplay; procedural posture clarified)
Chandler v. State, 848 So.2d 1031 (Fla.2003) (fundamental error requirement; prejudice under Strickland)
Lowe v. State, 2 So.3d 21 (Fla.2008) (no fundamental error on direct appeal bars ineffective-assistance claim)
Clarke v. State, 954 So.2d 36 (Fla.4th DCA 2007) (Table affirmance on direct appeal)