FRANK C. FRICANO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timeliness Of Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Frank Frieano appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court summarily denied the motion on the ground that it was untimely. Although the motion was filed several days late, it was notarized in the prison on the last day for filing. Mr. Frica-no’s motion for rehearing, while not attaching the prison mail logs, does allege under oath that he has satisfied the mailbox rule of Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1992). Thus, we are concerned that the basis for this summary denial may be incorrect.
Nevertheless, we have reviewed the seven grounds contained in the motion. Grounds three through six were raised and rejected on direct appeal. Grounds two and seven are matters which should have been raised, if ever, on direct appeal. Ground seven is without legal merit. Finally, the lengthy allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel contained in ground one are factually insufficient to support relief under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitney v. Manos Milien & Esurance Ins. Co., 125 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…the amounts awarded by the jury, mere disagreement with a jury’s verdict will not suffice; a verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only where the evidence is ‘clear, obvious, and indisputable.’ ” Id. (quoting Becker v. Williams, 652 So. 2d 1182, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)). The correctness of the jury’s verdict is strengthened when the trial judge refuses to grant a new trial or a remittitur. Lassitter v. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 349 So. 2d 622, 627 (Fla.1976). The appellate court s…
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Penland, 668 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…ot precluding the trial court from allowing other testimony from Mr. Moss (or any other expert) on matters that are not within the jurors’ common understanding. We further note that we are unpersuaded by State Farm’s reliance on Becker v. Williams, 652 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), which it contends stands for the proposition that the trial court should only grant a new trial when the verdict is clearly, obviously and indisputably wrong. This language was used in Becker as the trial court granted a new tri…
-
Uniroyal Tire Co. v. Trujillo, 711 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…all the circumstances and against the manifest weight of the evidence.” The law is clear that a verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when it is clear, obvious, and indisputable that the jury was wrong. See Becker v. Williams, 652 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Bern v. Spring, 565 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Andrews v. Tew, 512 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Vroom, 480 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In applying this standard, we conclude that the trial court…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)