ALVIN WALDBURG, 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 reversed the summary denial of post-conviction relief on the ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding failure to assert speedy trial rights, though it affirmed the rejection of the direct speedy trial claim itself.
A claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely assert a speedy trial right is cognizable under rule 3.850 and cannot be summarily denied without an evidentiary hearing or record refutation.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to timely assert a speedy trial right is cognizable under rule 3.850 and cannot be summarily denied without an ev…
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 intelligenceAlvin Waldburg sought post-conviction relief under rule 3.850, alleging he was denied a speedy trial and that trial counsel was ineffective for failin…
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 Summary Denial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Alvin Waldburg, challenges the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the motion, appellant alleges that he was denied his right to a speedy trial, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert appellant’s speedy trial right in a timely fashion. The contention that appellant was denied a speedy trial presents an issue that could or should have been raised on direct appeal and is thus improper to raise under rule 3.850. Gardner v. State, 550 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Shannon v. State, 406 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Suto v. State, 422 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
However, the claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to timely assert appellant’s speedy trial right presents a cognizable basis for post-conviction relief. Pippin v. State, 626 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Gunn v. State, 378 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Our review of the record indicates that this was a facially valid claim that was not susceptible to summary denial. Consequently, we must reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on this issue, or for attachment of portions of the record refuting appellant’s allegation.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MINER, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gunn v. State, 378 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Shannon v. State, 406 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Gardner v. State, 550 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Sandor Suto v. State, 422 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Haley Bascom Pippin v. State, 626 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)