147 So. 3d 514
Fla.2014Background
- Florida Supreme Court reviews Fourth District’s Sirota decision on prejudice standard for ineffective assistance claims after Frye/Lafler; Alcorn changed the standard; case remanded for proceedings consistent with Alcorn; respondent conceded factual indistinguishability but urged caution about remand; court quashes Sirota and remands to trial court; opinion notes jurisdiction and certification of great public importance
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alcorn governs the prejudice standard in Sirota | Sirota should be decided under Alcorn’s Frye/Lafler-based prejudice test | Alcorn applies and controls outcome; remand appropriate for applying it | Yes; Alcorn controls and requires remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. State, 991 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 2008) (rejected Morgan’s prior standard in light of Frye and Lafler)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013) (adopts reasonable-probability prejudice standard post-Frye/Lafler)
- Frye v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (minimum requirements of ineffective assistance claims acknowledged)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) (prosecution rejected plea; prejudice inquiry clarified)
- Sirota v. State, 95 So. 3d 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (certified question of great public importance on Morgan-based standard)