State v. Lucas
Annotate this CaseRespondent was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with a battery and aggravated battery and sentenced to life in prison. Respondent later filed a postconviction motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 raising four grounds for relief. As his first ground for relief, Respondent alleged that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to hire an ophthalmologist expert to rebut the State’s claim that the victim suffered permanent eye damage as an element of aggravated battery. The State responded that the claim in ground one was insufficiently pled because it did not name the witness that should have been called and did not allege that the witness would have been available to testify at trial. The trial court struck the 3.850 motion. The district court reversed, concluding that Respondent was not required to provide the name of an ophthalmologist expert and that Respondent’s postconviction motion was facially sufficient. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a 3.850 motion alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to consult or present an expert in a named field of expertise need not, in every case, name a specific expert and attest that the specific expert would have been available to testify at trial.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.