KEIDRICK LANIER EWING, 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.
Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on appeal that convictions under Florida's organized stolen property statute were fundamentally erroneous under Goddard and Burrell, warranting a new appellate proceeding.
Appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present the claim that convictions for dealing in stolen property—organized under section 812.019(2) were fundamentally erroneous in light of Goddard v. State and Burrell v. State.
[1] Appellate counsel's failure to raise a claim that a conviction is fundamentally erroneous under established precedent constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel warran…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKeidrick Lanier Ewing was convicted of dealing in stolen property—organized in violation of section 812.019(2), Florida Statutes, and his appellate co…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Appellate Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Keidrick Lamar Ewing presents a timely claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. As amended, his petition asserts that appellate counsel was ineffective in five respects. Grounds II through V are meritless, and we deny them without further discussion. However, we find that as Ewing argues in his remaining claim, appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to present for the court’s consideration the claim that petitioner’s convictions for “dealing in stolen property — organized,” in violation of section 812.019(2), Florida Statutes, are fundamentally erroneous in *944light of Goddard v. State, 458 So.2d 230 (Fla.1984), and Burrell v. State, 601 So.2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Accordingly, the petition is granted in part and we order commencement of a new appellate proceeding. See Marrero v. State, 967 So.2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Shabazz v. State, 955 So.2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). A copy of this opinion 'will be provided to the clerk of the circuit court upon issuance of mandate, who shall treat it as a timely notice of appeal. If petitioner qualifies for appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him on appeal. The resulting appeal shall be limited to the issues of whether petitioner’s convictions for violations of section 812.019(2) are erroneous, whether any such error is fundamental in nature, and if so, the appropriate remedy.
DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burrell v. State, 601 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Goddard v. State, 458 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 1984)
- Marrero v. State, 967 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Musa Shabazz v. State, 955 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)