JORGE ROQUE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JORGE ROQUE, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
919 So. 2d 671
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2006)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Cummings-El v. State, 863 So. 2d 246, 254-55 (Fla.2003) (stating “as a practical matter, the trial judge’s inquiry can only be as specific as the defendant’s complaint[;] ... a trial court does not err in failing to conduct a Nelson inquiry where the defendant merely expresses dissatisfaction with this attorney).”
GRIFFIN, THOMPSON and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franklin v. State, 923 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…; Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199 (Fla.2002)(holding that a successive 3.850 motion can be denied on the ground that it is an abuse of process, if there is no reason why the issue could not have been raised in a previous motion); Scrambling v. State, 919 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)(holding that defendant’s 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the “defendant’s current rule 3.850 motion is one that could have or should have been raised in his first rule 3.850 moti…
-
Recardo Clayton v. State, 34 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…n for failing to raise the issues in the previous motion.” Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199, 205 (Fla.2002), citing Pope v. State, 702 So. 2d 221, 223 (Fla.1997). See also Leunne v. State, 981 So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Scrambling v. State, 919 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the issue raised in the pending rule 3.850 motion was one that could or should have been raised in the earlier rule 3.850…
-
Leunne v. State, 981 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…he current motion as successive. See Moore v. State, 820 So. 2d 199, 205 (Fla.2002) (holding that a successive rule 3.850 motion can be denied if there is no reason why the issue could not have been raised in a previous motion); Scrambling v. State, 919 So. 2d 671, 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred as successive where the issue raised in the pending rule 3.850 motion was one that could or should have been raised in the earlier rule 3.850…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cummings-El v. State, 863 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2003)