STEVE HAMPTON, A/K/A CALVIN ROSS, 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.
Steve Hampton appealed his convictions for resisting arrest with violence, loitering and prowling, battery on a law enforcement officer, and unlawful use of a false name. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hampton failed to preserve his arguments for appeal through proper procedural compliance and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding his counsel provided effective assistance.
The court affirmed the convictions, holding that Hampton failed to preserve his arguments for appeal because his motion for judgment of acquittal was boilerplate and did not specify the grounds on which it was based, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that counsel provided effective assistance of counsel after conducting a full inquiry into Hampton's Nelson hearing request.
[1] A boilerplate motion for judgment of acquittal is insufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review.
[2] To preserve an argument for appeal, the legal grounds must be asserted as the basis for the objection, exception, or motion below.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“To preserve an argument for appeal, it must be asserted as the legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380 requires that a motion for judgment of acquittal 'fully set forth the grounds on which it is based.'”
Establishes the procedural requirement for preserving arguments on appeal through proper specificity in trial court motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHampton was convicted of resisting arrest with violence, loitering and prowling, battery on a law enforcement officer, and unlawful use of a false nam…
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 Nelson Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Appellant challenges his convictions for resisting arrest with violence, loitering and prowling, battery on a law enforcement officer, and unlawful use of a false name. He claims that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, however his motion was a “boilerplate motion” and did not allege the grounds he asserts on appeal. “To preserve an argument for appeal, it must be asserted as the legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.380 requires that a motion for judgment of acquittal ‘fully set forth the grounds on which it is based.’ ” Woods v. State, 733 So. 2d 980, 984 (Fla.1999) (quoting Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.380(b)) (citations omitted). A boilerplate motion for judgment of acquittal will not suffice to preserve the issue on appeal. Id. We therefore affirm.
He also alleges that the trial court should have discharged his counsel on a Nelson1 inquiry, because counsel refused to pursue a hearing to determine whether the probable cause affidavit included false evidence. At the Nelson hearing Hampton relied on State v. Swain, 689 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), as support for his position. In response to his motion, counsel told the court that they did not have any affidavits from witnesses showing a deliberate falsehood, and they had a good faith belief that appellant was not entitled to a hearing. The court determined that the lawyers had provided effective assistance of counsel. On the face of this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion because it made a full inquiry into appellant’s request. Moreover, the issue of whether counsel was effective can be raised in a motion for postconviction relief should appellant have evidence of the falsity of the probable cause affidavit.
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur. . Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Woods v. State, 733 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1999)
- State v. Swain, 689 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)