DONALD E. HARRIS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Harris's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking a belated appeal based on ineffective appellate counsel was denied because the jurisdictional issue he claimed should have been raised on appeal was not preserved at trial.
Appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise an issue on appeal that was not preserved at trial.
[1] An appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise an issue on appeal that was not preserved at trial.
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 intelligenceHarris was convicted in 1994 of burglary and robbery. After an initial appeal and remand for resentencing, he was sentenced as a habitual offender to …
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Harris petitions this court for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, seeking a belated appeal of his 1994 convictions for burglary of a structure and robbery because Ms appellate counsel was ineffective. We affirmed Ms judgment but remanded for resentencing in 1995. See Harris v. State, 661 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). On remand he was sentenced as an habitual offender to ten years incarceration for burglary, and twenty years concurrently for robbery. He appealed and his judgment and sentences were affirmed without opimon by this court. Harris v. State, 675 So. 2d. 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
We deny the writ because we find no merit to Harris’ argument that in either appeal Ms appellate counsel was ineffective. Harris contends his appellate counsel should have argued the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence procured as the result of a stop, because it was made by a police officer outside his jurisdiction. However, at trial, the defense oMy argued that the officer should have procured a warrant prior to searching Harris’ car, and that was the reason the evidence should have been suppressed. Thus, the jurisdiction issue was not preserved for appeal purposes, since it was not argued to the trial court. Appellate counsel cannot be faulted for having failed to raise an issue which was not preserved for appellate review. Medina v. Dugger, 586 So. 2d 317 (Fla.1991); Lambrix v. Dugger, 529 So. 2d 1110 (Fla.1988).
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus DENIED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.E. v. State, 731 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…was a stop without founded or reasonable suspicion. See Popple v. State, 626 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1993). We agree with the state that this seizure argument was not preserved for appeal. Archer v. State, 613 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 1993); Harris v. State, 711 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Green v. State, 711 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, even if it had been, because of the location of the car, the time of night, and the events that had previously occurred in the park, which were known to the p…
-
Lyndell Lamar Demps v. State, 741 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…[*1263] PER CURIAM. See Jones v. State, 484 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1986); Alvord v. State, 396 So. 2d 184 (Fla.1981); Harris v. State, 711 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus DENIED. W. SHARP, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Medina v. Dugger, 586 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1991)
- Cary Michael Lambrix v. Dugger, 529 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1988)
- Harris v. State, 661 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)