DEVALON DUPERIER, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where trial counsel failed to preserve a suppression issue for appeal, holding that even if counsel's performance was deficient, the failure to object would not have changed the outcome because the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
Counsel's failure to preserve a suppression issue by objecting when evidence was admitted does not constitute ineffective assistance warranting relief when the trial court properly denied the underlying motion to suppress.
[1] To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a defendant must prove both that counsel's performance fell below professional norms and that the defici…
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 intelligenceDevalon Duperier was stopped and cocaine was discovered in his rental car. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the cocaine.…
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 Trial Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Devalon Duperier appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He alleges ineffectiveness of trial counsel in his handling of appellant’s motion to suppress cocaine discovered upon a stop of appellant’s rental car. We affirm.
It is well settled that to prevail upon a motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the moving party must meet a two-prong test: first, that counsel’s performance was below the norm of professionally accepted standards, and secondly, that such lack of effectiveness would have changed the outcome of the case. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). While appellant has probably satisfied the first prong of Strickland, we hold that counsel’s failure to preserve the issue for direct appellate review by failing to object at the time the cocaine was offered into evidence does not warrant granting relief, as this failure would not have changed the outcome of the case. The trial court properly denied the motion to suppress, and even had counsel preserved the issue by making a contemporaneous objection, the trial court would properly have overruled the objection and we would have affirmed on direct review. See Florida v. Jimeno, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1801, 114 L.Ed.2d 297 (1991); Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983); State v. Dilyerd, 467 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1985); State v. Sears, 493 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
AFFIRMED.
LETTS, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 660 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…irectly refuted by the attachments to the order, or (3) as to the ineffectiveness of counsel claim, do not show that the result would have been different if the course that is now urged by the defendant had been followed at trial. Duperier v. State, 590 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We would have already disposed of this case as an affirmance but for the fact that appellant has recently filed a brief, even though one is not necessary. Our review of the appeal is governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Proce…
-
State v. Harrington, 838 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…sion of Harrington's confession. However, since any objection should have been overruled, counsel's failure to object (in my view) would not have changed the outcome and thus does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Du-perier v. State, 590 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(motion to suppress cocaine was properly denied and thus defendant was not denied effective assistance by trial counsel’s failure to preserve issue for appeal by not objecting at time cocaine was offered into evidence; counsel's f…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (U.S. 1983)
- Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1991)
- State v. Dilyerd, 467 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Audley Sears, 493 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)