RANDY LEON GHOLSTON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
PER CURIAM.
On the authority of Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla.1992), we answer the question certified in Gholston v. State, 589 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in the affirmative and approve that portion of the district court’s opinion that upheld habitual offender sentencing for first-degree felonies punishable by life imprisonment.1 We do not address any other issues and express no opinion on the correctness of the remainder of the district court opinion.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), of the Florida Constitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Hannon v. State, 941 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 2006)…the extent that counsel failed to discover the aforementioned information. However, since Mr. Fernandez and the other inmates were not agents of the State, counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise non-meritorious issues. See Parker v. State, 611 So. 2d 1224, 1227 (Fla.1993). Moreover, Defendant’s counsel attempted to discredit the six informants of the State with testimony from several inmates that they never heard Defendant talk to anyone in the jail regarding his case. (See Trial Transcript, Volume X…
-
Lugo v. State, 2 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2008)…t-arrest statement “is not an appropriate remedy for an alleged violation of article 36 of the Vienna Convention.” Conde, 860 So. 2d at 953. Since trial counsel is not ineffective for the failure to raise a nonmeritorious issue, see Parker v. State, 611 So. 2d 1224, 1227 (Fla.1992), and Lugo would not have obtained relief on his ineffectiveness claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Lugo’s motion to amend.11 Extradition Treaty During trial, it was revealed that Lugo did not contes…
-
Trowell v. State, 706 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…a guilty verdict. It is well established in our law that a defendant appealing from a verdict of guilty after a jury trial is prohibited from filing a collateral attack on issues that could have been or were raised on direct appeal. Parker v. State, 611 So. 2d 1224, 1226 (Fla.1992) (“We have repeatedly said that a motion under Rule 3.850 cannot be used for a second appeal to consider issues that either were raised in the initial appeal or could have been raised in that appeal.”) Such a defendant’s direct appea…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burdick v. State, 594 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1992)
- Gholston v. State, 589 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)