JASON STIGALL, 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.
The court denied the defendant's request for a belated appeal but without prejudice to file a legally sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
The defendant sought a belated appeal, alleging his attorneys failed to file one after his conviction and sentencing. The appellate counsel had filed …
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 Belated Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Jason Stigall seeks a belated appeal of his conviction and sentence alleging that he specifically requested his two privately-retained attorneys to file an appeal after sentencing.
After Stigall was sentenced, the State of Florida appealed a downward departure and Stigall’s appellate counsel filed a notice of cross-appeal to Stigall’s conviction. Appellate counsel subsequently filed an answer brief in response to the State’s initial brief, but never pursued the cross-appeal by raising any challenges to the conviction.
While the appeal was pending, the community control that was being served by Stigall in the case was violated and revoked. His resentencing was appealed and affirmed in Stigall v. State, 900 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“Stigall II”).
The State voluntarily dismissed its original appeal after Stigall II was affirmed and this court dismissed the case without objection or comment from Stigall’s appellate counsel.
We view this ease as possible grounds for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel rather than ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Appellate counsel, in the original proceeding, filed a notice of appeal and an answer brief, but may have dropped the ball on the cross-appeal of the original conviction.1
Whether Stigall’s appellate counsel’s failure to raise issues challenging the conviction is deficient depends upon whether any meritorious issues existed and whether the outcome of the appeal was affected. Stigall does not specify any meritorious issues in his petition which should have been raised by appellate counsel.
We deny Stigall’s request for a belated appeal, but do so without prejudice to his opportunity to file a petition stating a legally-sufficient claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
PETITION DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
PETERSON, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . Stigall's appellate counsel passed away in August, 2005.