KEONNE C. WILLIAMS, vs THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 4, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ Nos. 3D18-1547 & 3D18-1961 Lower Tribunal No. 11-22504 ________________ Keonne C. Williams, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. Appeals under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alberto Milian, Judge. Keonne C. Williams, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Linda Katz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ. PER CURIAM. Keonne C. Williams was convicted of, and sentenced for, first-degree murder, robbery using a deadly weapon or firearm, firearm/weapon/ammunition possession by a convicted felon or delinquent, and attempted armed robbery. That conviction and sentence was affirmed on direct appeal. Williams v. State, 191 So. 3d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). In this appeal, Williams seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Williams filed a timely motion for postconviction relief on April 27, 2018. We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that Williams failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984): “The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” See also Hurst v. State, 18 So. 3d 975, 996 (Fla. 2009) (“The Court need not reach both Strickland prongs in every case. ‘[W]hen a defendant fails to make a showing as to one prong, it is not necessary to delve into whether he has made a showing as to the other prong.’” Preston v. State, 970 So. 2d 789, 803 (Fla. 2007) (altercation in original) (additional citations omitted)). Affirmed. 2
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.
