CHESTER ANDREW SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Smith appeals the denial of his Rule 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief, in which he claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise five issues on direct appeal of his cocaine trafficking conviction. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be raised via habeas corpus petition, not Rule 3.850 proceedings, and that the underlying issues could have been raised on direct appeal.
Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be raised through habeas corpus petition, not Rule 3.850 proceedings. Rule 3.850 cannot be used to review issues that could or should have been raised on direct appeal. The trial court properly denied relief because these five issues were preserved at trial and could have been raised on appeal.
[1] Claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel must be raised in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, not a motion for post-conviction relief.
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief cannot be used to review issues that could or should have been raised on direct appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel should not be raised in a Rule 3.850 proceeding, but rather should be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding before the court which considered the appeal”
Establishes the proper procedural mechanism for raising appellate ineffective assistance claims, distinguishing it from Rule 3.850 proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was convicted of trafficking in cocaine in excess of 400 grams and sentenced to 15 years incarceration. His direct appeal conviction and sentenc…
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 Unconstitutional Search And Seizure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was tried and found guilty of trafficking in cocaine in excess of 400 grams and was sentenced to 15 years incarceration. This court per curiam affirmed his conviction and sentence. See Smith v. State, 519 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
In this collateral proceeding, defendant contends that his conviction was obtained by use of a coerced confession in violation of his Miranda rights; that his conviction was obtained by use of a coérced confession when the police officer misled him as to the penalty for his crime; that his conviction was obtained by use of evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure because his traffic stop was really a profile stop; that his conviction was obtained by use of evidence of possession of weapons which was improperly admitted since the weapons were not owned or possessed by the defendant; and that his conviction was obtained by use of testimony of a witness who was improperly coached by the assistant state attorney. Defendant stated that none of these grounds was raised on direct appeal, even though preserved by proper objection at trial, due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The trial court, in summarily denying the motion for post-conviction relief, construed the motion as alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in failing to raise the five grounds enunciated. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to grant relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel since the proper method of raising such a claim is by petition for writ of habeas corpus for belated appeal. Accordingly, the court denied the motion without prejudice to the defendant filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. That denial is the subject of the instant appeal.
The trial court correctly found that a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel should not be raised in a Rule 3.850 proceeding, but rather should be raised in a habeas corpus proceeding before the court which considered the appeal. See Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1981); Romano v. State, 491 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bailey v. State, 475 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Since the defendant specifically conceded that the errors raised were properly preserved for appellate review by trial counsel, there is no claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Clearly, the five issues raised are issues which could and should have been raised on appeal.
Therefore, even if the defendant was seeking direct review of those issues rather than through the vehicle of ineffective assistance of counsel, relief pursuant to Rule 3.850 would be denied since the rule cannot be used to review issues which could or should have been raised on appeal. See Francis v. State, 529 So. 2d 670 (Fla.1988); McCrae v. State, 510 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1987).
Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied the motion for post-conviction relief.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, C.J., and COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hayes v. State, 598 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ght, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla.1987) Francis v. State, 529 So. 2d 670 (Fla.1988); McCrae v. State, 510 So. 2d 874 (Fla.1987); Armstrong v. State, 429 So. 2d 287 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 865, 104 S.Ct. 203, 78 L.Ed.2d 177 (1983); Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Gonzalez-Osorio v. State, 535 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 544 So. 2d 199 (Fla.1989); DiSavoia v. State, 522 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), rev. denied, 529 So. 2d 693 (Fla.1988). .See Florida Rule of Criminal Pro…
-
Nairn v. State, 816 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…in the appellate court that handled the direct appeal”); Johnson v. State, 694 So. 2d 159, 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Oakley v. State, 677 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Dinkins v. State, 600 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 316, 317 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Even if the trial court had transferred the petition, in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(b)(1), the petition failed to state any basis for relief. WOLF, KAHN, and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Jones v. Boan (Lee County) (M.D. Fla. 2022)…habeas corpus proceeding before the court which considered the appeal. See Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981); Romano v. State, 491 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Bailey v. State, 475 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1985).” Smith v. State, 543 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The record reflects that Defendant did not file a Habeas Corpus claim with the appropriate court that heard the appeal. Claims for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. Defe…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 400 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- McCRAE v. State, 510 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 1987)
- Francis v. State, 529 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1988)
- Hamilton v. Quirk, 475 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Fernandez v. State, 475 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Romano v. State, 491 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)