Garrett v. State, 62 So. 3d 1274

Garrett was charged in 2007 with sexual battery on a child under twelve, three counts of lewd and lascivious molestation, showing obscene material to a minor, and lewd and lascivious exhibition.
A mistrial occurred at the first trial; Garrett ultimately entered a no contest plea to reduced charges with concurrent sentences of 15 years in prison and 10 years' probation.
In his 3.850 motion, Garrett claimed ineffective assistance for trial counsel's failure to call Jarrod Quackenbush at the second trial, who could allegedly rebut the victim's statements.
Quackenbush reportedly lived next door to the victim and would have testified that the victim and mother lied and that the victim feared trouble for lies.
The State relied on a 2006 letter suggesting Quackenbush would not testify; Garrett had knowledge of issues about availability prior to pleading.
The postconviction court adopted the State's view that Quackenbush was unavailable; the court did not address whether availability, not willingness, is the correct standard and whether a hearing was needed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to call Quackenbush constitutes ineffective assistance	Garrett	State	Remand for evidentiary development on availability and prejudice
Whether the record before the court refutes availability or requires a hearing	Garrett	State	Record insufficient; remand to attach records or conduct hearing

Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 2004) (standard for proving ineffective assistance requires identifying witness, availability, and prejudice)
Highsmith v. State, 617 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (witness availability—not willingness—is the test for ineffective assistance)
Stano v. State, 520 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1988) (plea validity and voluntariness considerations in showing ineffective assistance)
Smith v. State, 815 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (facially sufficient claim of failing to investigate potential defense witness may survive plea)