WALTER R. COCHENOUR, 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 the motion for post-conviction relief, except for the allegation regarding the right to appeal, which was affirmed without prejudice.
Cochenour was convicted of escape and sentenced as a habitual felony offender. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assis…
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 Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Walter R. Cochenour has appealed from an order of the trial court summarily denying his motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. We affirm.
Cochenour was convicted of escape and, on December 28, 1990, the trial court imposed an habitual felony offender sentence. On May 28, 1991, Cochenour filed the instant motion alleging 1) ineffective assistance of counsel, 2) failure to prepare a sentencing guidelines scoresheet, 3) failure to provide a hearing on the habitual felony offender classification, and 4) denial of the right to appeal, in that his counsel refused to do so despite a request.
We find, without discussion, that the trial court correctly denied Cochenour’s motion as to the first three grounds. With regard to the fourth, the allegation that a defendant made a timely request for an appeal which counsel failed to honor creates a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, requiring either an evidentiary hearing or attachment of those portions of the record negating the allegation. Jackson v. State, 599 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
We affirm the denial of the motion as to this allegation, in that Cochenour did not allege that his request for an appeal was timely. However, as to this allegation only, affirmance is without prejudice to the filing of a sworn motion alleging that the request for an appeal was timely made. The order is in all other respects affirmed on the merits.
JOANOS, C.J., WIGGINTON and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Worthington v. MacGREGOR, 771 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e circumstances of the parties since entry of the custody and visitation order, and (2) that the welfare of the child will be promoted by a change in custody and visitation. See Haas v. Haas, 686 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); McGlamry v. McGlamry, 608 So. 2d 563, 554-55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In the trial court’s final judgment of December 7, 1999, the trial judge specifically found that the former wife had failed to show by competent substantial evidence that there had been any material change in circumstanc…
Authorities Cited
- Pennington v. Keene, 599 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)