ANGEL LOPEZ, 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.
Angel Lopez was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and discharging a firearm from a vehicle. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions while declining to address his direct appeal claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, finding such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal except in rare circumstances.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims are not cognizable on direct appeal except in rare cases where both prongs of the Strickland test—error and prejudice—are manifest on the face of the record. Lopez's claim did not meet the criteria for appellate review on direct appeal and must be raised in an appropriate 3.850 motion.
[1] Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are generally presented in a post-conviction motion, not on direct appeal.
[2] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims are cognizable on direct appeal only in rare instances where the ineffectiveness is apparent on the face of the record and would…
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“Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are usually presented in a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850... Thus, ineffective assistance claims are not usually presented to the judge at trial, and we have repeatedly stated such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.”
Establishes the general rule that ineffective assistance claims belong in post-conviction motions, not direct appeals.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAngel Lopez was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and discharging a firearm from a vehicle. On direct appeal, Lopez argued that his trial…
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 Strickland Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the appellant’s convictions for aggravated battery with a firearm and discharging a firearm from a vehicle. We write only to address the appellant’s argument that his trial counsel was ineffective. The appellant has not shown any basis to raise ineffectiveness of counsel on direct appeal. In Smith v. State, 998 So.2d 516 (Fla.2008), the supreme court stated:
Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are usually presented in a post-conviction motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Under that rule, the circuit court can be specifically presented with the claim, and apply the Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ] standard with reference to the full record and any evidence it may receive in an evidentiary hearing, including trial counsel’s testimony. Thus, ineffective assistance claims are not usually presented to the judge at trial, and we have repeatedly stated such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.... We recognize that ‘[tjhere are rare'exceptions where appellate counsel may successfully raise the issue on direct appeal because the ineffectiveness is apparent on the face of the record and it would be a waste of judicial resources to require the trial court to address the issue.’ Thus, in the rare case, where both prongs of Strickland — the error and the prejudice — are manifest in the record, an appellate court may address an ineffective assistance claim.
Id. at 522-23 (internal citations omitted); see also Jones v. State, 815 So.2d 772, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“[I]neffeetive assistance of counsel will only be addressed on direct appeal for the first time when the *890facts giving rise to the claim are apparent on the face of the record, a conflict of interest is shown, or prejudice to the defendant is shown.”).
The appellant’s claim does not meet any of these criteria. We therefore decline to address that claim on this direct appeal. This opinion, however, is without prejudice to the appellant raising his claim in an appropriate 3.850 motion. We make no comment on whether such a motion would have merit or not.
Affiivned.
DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 24 So. 3d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…ant thus has little choice: As a rule, he or she can only raise an ineffectiveness claim via a rule 3.850 motion, even if the same underlying facts also supported, or could have supported, a claim of error on direct appeal. See also Lopez v. State, 17 So. 3d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Here, the record does not show any error or prejudice that would allow an exception to that rule. Id. Affirmed. . Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). . Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (F…
Authorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Smith v. State, 998 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 2008)
- Jones v. State, 815 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)