Hills v. State, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 162

Trial counsel failed to move to sever Counts III and IV until after the jury was informed of all four charges.
Judge considered severance and Williams Rule admissions to cure prejudice from severance, but the court and counsel proceeded with the four-count framework.
Four counts alleged: I–II sexual battery against A.W.G. (child under 12) and III–IV lewd/molestation against D.A.R. (12–16) with overlapping timelines.
Jury was instructed on counts I and II only after Williams Rule proffer and D.A.R. testimony; D.A.R. testimony was admitted with limited purposes.
Appellant was convicted on counts I and II and sentenced to life in prison without parole; defense challenge alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
Court reverses, finding deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland, rare on-the-record ineffectiveness, and limits precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel’s failure to sever prejudicial counts ineffective?	Fromang	State	Yes; Renders trial tainted; prejudicial to defendant.
Did waiver and double jeopardy concerns justify severance strategy?	Fromang	State	No; waiver was harmful and ineffective,
Was Williams Rule admission properly handled?	Fromang	State	No; insufficient objection and reliability issues with D.A.R.
Did overall ineffectiveness affect the outcome?	Fromang	State	Yes; reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959) (admissibility of Williams Rule evidence for limited purposes)
Alsfield v. State, 22 So.3d 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (clear and convincing evidence standard for collateral acts; admissibility considerations)
Audano v. State, 641 So.2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (collateral crimes evidence reliability concerns)
State v. Dixon, 478 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (double jeopardy considerations in severance context)
Gordon v. State, 469 So.2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (exception to direct appeal for ineffective assistance; de novo review)