JOSE VAZQUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Direct Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Vazquez appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. He previously appealed from his conviction and sentence for first degree murder, armed burglary of a dwelling, and grand theft of a motor vehicle. This court per curiam affirmed without opinion. See Vazquez v. State, 620 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Vazquez argues in this collateral proceeding that his trial counsel was ineffective for not providing him with an interpreter during the trial, and that the trial court erred in not providing him with an interpreter. We affirm.
Claims involving the absence of an interpreter at trial are ones which could be and should be raised on direct appeal. They are not appropriately raised in a rule 3.850 proceeding, which is a collateral attack on the original judgment. Lopez v. Singletary, 634 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1993); Rivera v. Dugger, 629 So. 2d 105 (Fla.1993). See also Larias v. State, 528 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Quintana v. State, 520 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Vazquez will not be allowed a second appeal under the guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sterling Childers v. State, 782 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…vide a second chance to raise allegedly reversible error that was argued in the original appeal by re-raising it under the guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1067 (Fla.2000); Vazquez v. State, 653 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was an issue for direct appeal, and therefore not cognizable under rule 3.850. See Jones v. State, 699 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Williams v. State, 642 So. 2d 67 (…
-
Delmetric Dowling v. State, 796 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…for clarification)(“Rule 3.850 does not provide a second chance to raise allegedly reversible error that was argued in the original appeal by re-raising it under the guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”); see also Vazquez v. State, 653 So. 2d 486, 486-87 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(“Vazquez will not be allowed a [*1196] second appeal under the guise of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”). Accordingly, we affirm. DELL, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Booska v. State, 935 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ovide a second avenue for raising purportedly reversible errors that were argued in the plenary appeal by re-raising them in the guise of ineffective assistance claims. See, e.g., Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1067 (Fla.2000); Vazquez v. State, 653 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). As to the remaining issues raised, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying them summarily. The sentence imposed was not vindictive1, the autopsy photographs were properly admitted2, and [*1239] the combined clai…
Authorities Cited
- Lopez v. Singletary, 634 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1993)
- Rivera v. Dugger, 629 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1993)
- Larias v. State, 528 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Quintana v. State, 520 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)