JEFFREY RAY HENLEY, 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 appellate court affirmed the conviction because the appellant waived the issue of suppression by failing to object at trial, and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not preserved.
[1] A defendant waives any error regarding the admission of evidence if they fail to object to its admission at trial.
[2] Appellate courts will ordinarily not consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal, as such claims typically require factual determinations best made by…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine and challenged the admission of the evidence, arguing the court erred in denying a motion to supp…
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 Waiver Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction for possession of cocaine on the ground that the court erred in failing to grant a motion to suppress the cocaine as evidence. As pointed out by the state, appellant failed to object to the evidence when it was admitted into evidence. Thus, appellant waived any error regarding its admission, and this issue is not preserved for appeal. See Green v. State, 711 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997).
To counter this preservation problem, appellant claims that this court can review the error absent an objection at trial because the failure to object constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel apparent on the face of the record. He cites to Reaves v. State, 669 So. 2d 352 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). However, in Reaves the state conceded that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was cognizable on the face of the record; by contrast, in the present case, there is no such concession of error. Instances where the appellate court will address an ineffectiveness claim on the face of an appellate record are rare indeed. As Judge Anstead noted in his special concurrence in Gordon v. State, 469 So. 2d 795, 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985):
I ... write separately only to caution litigants that we will not ordinarily consider a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.... Such claims ordinarily turn on issues of fact and both sides are entitled to present relevant evidence to the trial court to resolve those issues. It is only because of the gross and patent showing of ineffectiveness virtually conceded by the state on this record that we are taking the highly unusual step of intervening at this stage of the proceedings.
(emphasis added). By contrast, on the instant record there is no showing of gross ineffectiveness. Indeed, the failure to object may have been simply a recognition of the meritlessness of the motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
KLEIN, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Kason Meme v. State, 72 So. 3d 254 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…es a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion to suppress, but we do not address it. This is not one of those claims so apparent on the face of the record that it may be addressed on direct appeal. See Henley v. State, 719 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We have also examined the other issue raised on appeal and find no error. Affirmed. TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.…
-
Charleston Karrem Larry v. State, 61 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…nconceivable.” Corzo, 806 So. 2d at 645. To obtain relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, the facts upon which the claim is based must be clearly evident in the record. Stewart, 420 So. 2d at 864; Henley v. State, 719 So. 2d 990, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (explaining that “[i]n-stances where the appellate court will address an ineffectiveness claim on the face of an appellate record are rare indeed”). Moreover, the ineffectiveness must be so clear that “it would be a waste of…
-
Dewayne Fripp v. State, 766 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…waived, noting that “[d]efense counsel not only failed to object but specifically stated that he had no objection to the admission” of the evidence. Id. at 1030; see Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770, 774-75, 114 So. 534, 536 (1927); Henley v. State, 719 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Duperier v. State, 568 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Addressing the merits, we reject Fripp’s contention that the officer did not have the authority to arrest him on the driver’s license charge. A violation of section 322.03(…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gordon v. State, 469 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Green v. State, 711 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Blaise v. State, 669 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Reaves v. State, 669 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)