Opinion ID: 1836030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Standard of Review

Text: In Strickland, the Court emphasized that reviewing courts are not bound by the findings of the trial court in an ineffective counsel claim because [i]neffectiveness is not a question of `basic, primary, or historical fac[t].' 466 U.S. at 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (quoting Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 309 n. 6, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963)). Instead, the Court stated unequivocally that such a claim is a mixed question of law and fact. Id. at 698, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Thus, the reviewing court  independently reweighs the evidence to determine whether the claim is valid. Id. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (emphasis supplied). In other words, the appellate court has an obligation to conduct a plenary review. Baxter v. Thomas, 45 F.3d 1501, 1512-13 (11th Cir.1995), quoted in Rose v. State, 675 So.2d at 571. The standard would seem especially appropriate here, where the original trial and sentencing judge was deceased and a successor judge presided over the postconviction proceedings. Obviously, the successor judge was in no better position than this Court to evaluate appellant's claims without an evidentiary hearing.