David Edward Johnson v. State
The First DCA reversed the denial of a 3.850 motion and ordered a new trial, holding that trial counsel's multiple deficiencies—opening the door to comment on the defendant's silence, failing to object to unnoticed child hearsay and collateral crime evidence, and eliciting a damaging unimpeached statement from a witness without prior investigation—cumulatively prejudiced the defendant even though no single error alone may have warranted relief. The court rejected only the claim regarding the victim advocate sitting with the victim during testimony.
Key facts
- Defendant was convicted in trial court; trial counsel made multiple errors including opening the door to comment on defendant's post-arrest silence, failing to object to unadmitted child hearsay and collateral crime evidence, and eliciting a damaging unanticipated statement from a witness without prior investigation.
- Defendant filed a 3.850 motion for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel; trial court denied the motion, finding no individual error was independently prejudicial.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is useful to postconviction practitioners because it applies the cumulative-error doctrine to reverse despite the trial court's finding that no individual error was independently prejudicial, illustrating… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.