MARGARITA COLON VALERO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed Valero's convictions, rejecting her challenges to the constitutionality of Florida's habitual offender statute and her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which must be raised in a separate post-conviction motion.
Convictions are affirmed where the evidence is sufficient and the constitutional challenge to the habitual offender statute is foreclosed by settled law.
[1] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims cannot be raised for the first time on direct appeal but must be presented to the trial court under Florida Rule of Criminal Proc…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceValero was convicted and challenged her convictions on direct appeal, raising constitutional objections to Florida's habitual offender statute and cla…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant’s request for oral argument, made not in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.320, is denied. Cf. Quince v. State, 91 So. 2d 632 (Fla.1957); Haines v. State, 113 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) (denying requests for oral argument not made in a separate document, but incorporated in the brief, under former Florida Supreme Court Rule 40 and Florida Appellate Rule 3.10(a), respectively). After independently examining the briefs and record herein, we have determined that oral argument would serve no useful purpose, see, e. g., Williams v. State, 177 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), and, in the exercise of our discretion, decline to require it. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.320.
The judgments of convictions are affirmed. The evidence is more than sufficient to support the convictions. The constitutionality of Section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1979), in the face of the exact contention made by Valero here, namely, that it imposes cruel and unusual punishment, is well settled. McArthur v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla.1977); Banks v. State, 342 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1976); O’Donnell v. State, 326 So. 2d 4 (Fla.1975). Valero’s claim that her trial counsel was ineffective cannot properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal and is a matter to be presented to the trial court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1974); Jones v. State, 384 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Randall v. State, 346 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)…circuit court acting in its review capacity to review administrative action is appealable as a matter of right to the district court where it has already been directly “appealed” to the circuit court. Cf. Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. City of Miami, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), wherein the Third District treated as a petition for writ of certiorari an appeal from the circuit court’s final judgment entered in a zoning matter brought to the circuit court for review. We hold that where full review of admi…
-
Coral Reef Nurseries, Inc. v. The Babcock Co., 410 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ss-petition for cer- [*651] tiorari.6 See Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(B); O'Connor v. Dade County, 410 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 399 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. City of Miami, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.3d DCA 1981). Coral Reef and Santana contend that the Circuit Court was correct in holding that the Commission’s 1978 decision denying rezoning was fairly debatable, but incorrect in holding that administrative res judicata did not bar the Com…
-
Cherokee Crushed Stone, Inc. v. City OF Miramar, 421 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), the court stating: “We hold such final judgment [from the circuit court in an original certiorari proceeding] is reviewable here by appeal and deny the motion to dismiss.” And see Save Brickell Avenue, Inc. v. City of Miami, 393 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) holding that certio-rari is the appropriate vehicle to reach the district court where the proceeding in the circuit court was an appeal. (2) Odham v. [*687] Petersen, 398 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), which also bases review by…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nadean O. McARTHUR v. State, 351 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 1977)
- State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1974)
- Howard Banks v. State, 342 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1976)
- Jones v. State, 384 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- O'Donnell v. State, 326 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1975)
- Haines v. State, 113 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Williams v. State, 177 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Clements v. State, 346 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Randall v. State, 346 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Quince v. State, 91 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1956)