RICHARD L. BRANT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2002-06-05
No. 3D02-1289
Before JORGENSON, LEVY, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
817 So. 2d 1039 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2002) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of appellant Richard L. Brant’s motion for post-conviction relief as to grounds 4 and 5. Denial of defense motions for acquittal, on the charges of possession with intent to sell and for aggravated assault on law enforcement, are not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See, e.g. Johnson v. State, 649 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(issue which can be brought on direct appeal not cognizable by motion for post conviction relief).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Ortega-Lozano v. State, 920 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
    …llenges the trial court’s order summarily denying, as untimely, his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Although we conclude that Ortega-Lozano’s motion was timely filed, see Chagoya v. State, 817 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), we affirm the denial order because Ortega-Lozano cannot demonstrate prejudice. See Pena v. State, 837 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Prieto v. State, 824 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Affirmed. CASANUEVA, SALCINES, and…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw