ACENCION MEDRANO, 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.
This is an Anders appeal from an order denying postconviction relief following a first-degree murder conviction. The court affirmed the trial court's determination that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a timely postconviction motion, as counsel had not agreed to file one.
The trial court properly determined that counsel was not ineffective for the failure to file a timely Rule 3.850 motion because counsel had not agreed to file such a motion. The court also rejected appellant's alternative argument that appointed collateral counsel was ineffective, noting that ineffective assistance of collateral counsel is not cognizable because counsel is not guaranteed in collateral proceedings.
[1] Ineffective assistance of collateral counsel is not cognizable and is not a valid basis for postconviction relief because counsel is not guaranteed in collateral proceedi…
[2] New issues not raised in the initial brief or at the evidentiary hearing cannot be considered on appeal.
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 intelligence“the failure to file a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion was not due to ineffectiveness of counsel, who had not agreed to file such a motion”
States the trial court's factual finding supporting the denial of postconviction relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMedrano was convicted of first-degree murder. The Florida Supreme Court previously ordered the trial court to address the narrow issue of whether his …
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 Cognizable Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
This is an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), from an order denying appellant’s motion for postconviction relief from his first degree murder conviction. The narrow issue addressed by the trial court, as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in Medrano v. State, 748 So. 2d 986 (Fla.1999), is whether his retained counsel was ineffective for failure to file a timely postconviction motion. If successful, appellant could then raise all issues he alleged entitled him to postconviction relief.
The trial court determined that the failure to file a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion was not due to ineffectiveness of counsel, who had not agreed to file such a motion. We affirm the trial court’s order, as it is supported by competent, substantial evidence. Appellant filed his own brief and raises a different issue: whether the attorney appointed to represent him at the evidentiary hearing on his postconviction motion was ineffective.
However, that is not the issue on appeal. In any event, ineffective assistance of collateral counsel is not cognizable and is not' a valid basis for relief. See State v. Riechmann, 777 So. 2d 342, 364 n. 22 (Fla.2000), because counsel is not guaranteed in collateral proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 107 S.Ct. 1990, 95 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987); State ex rel. Butterworth v. Kenny, 714 So. 2d 404 (Fla.1998). In his reply brief, appellant also raises new issues not discussed in his initial brief or raised at the evidentiary hearing. These claims cannot be considered because they were not preserved or raised in the initial brief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.210(d); Fernandez v. Fernandez; 727 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Finally, we point out that an Anders brief is not necessary in rule 3.850 full appeals. See Mayolo v. State, 714 So. 2d 1124, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, the public defender having filed a brief in this case, we deny the motion to withdraw. Henceforth, we will strike Anders briefs filed in appeals of orders denying postcon-viction relief motions, as this court does not conduct the intensive Anders review that it does in appeals from convictions and sentences where Anders briefs are filed.
Affirmed.
POLEN, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur. -
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 845 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…he instructions were improper and constituted fundamental error, see Reed v. State, 837 So. 2d 366 (Fla.2002), until his reply brief. Because appellant failed to raise these issues in the initial brief, we cannot consider them. See Medrano v. State, 795 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In the sentence imposed, the trial court ordered appellant to pay costs in the amount of $376. This lump sum amount was orally pronounced without any further specificity as to the nature of the particular fees constitutin…
-
Smith v. State, 956 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…procedure set forth in Anders. Id. The Fourth District has now determined that it will strike Anders briefs filed in appeals of orders denying post-conviction relief and will not conduct the intensive review required by Anders. See Medrano v. State, 795 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Because no Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies in this appeal, we follow the Fourth District’s lead and strike the Anders brief filed in this case. AFFIRMED. KAHN, POLSTON, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
-
Randell Holmes v. State, 820 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Medrano v. State, 795 So. 2d 1009, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987)
- State v. Dieter Riechmann, 777 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2000)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Robert A. Butterworth v. Kenny, 714 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1998)
- Acencion Medrano v. State, 748 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1999)
- Mayolo v. State, 714 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Fernandez v. Fernandez, 727 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)