Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): manslaughter. Wilson v. State, 871 So.2d 298, 301 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App. 2004). Although Harris contends that his counsel should have correctly instructed him as to the voluntary-intoxication defense, these allegations are not enough to overcome the heavy burden of proof required to show ineffective assistance. See Chandler, 218 F.3d at 1314. Harris offers no explanation as to why his trial counsel should have pursued the voluntary-intoxication defense. The evidence presented at trial and at the suppression hearing demonstrated that Harris was not intoxicated or under the influence at the time he committed the offense. Therefore, any argument that counsel would have made regarding voluntary intoxication would have been inconsistent with the evidence. See, e.g., White, 972 F.2d at 1221 (<HOLDING>). Because Harris has not produced any evidence 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defense counsels failure to present voluntary intoxication as a defense in a capitalmurder prosecution was not beyond the range of reasonable professional judgment and thus did not amount to ineffective assistance in view of inconsistency of intoxication defense with deliberateness of the defendants actions during the shootings (B) holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense (C) holding that under florida precedent trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on intoxication as voluntary intoxication was a valid defense to a specific intent crime and expert testimony is relevant to a disputed voluntary intoxication defense (D) holding that an attorney was ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense because he did not understand the elements (E) holding counsels strategic decision not to present a voluntary intoxication defense did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel determined the murder was not committed while floyd was under the influence of cocaine
Output (English): holding that under florida precedent trial court erred in excluding expert testimony on intoxication as voluntary intoxication was a valid defense to a specific intent crime and expert testimony is relevant to a disputed voluntary intoxication defense