GOMEZ
v.
STATE
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.
Ineffective assistance of counsel claims not apparent on the face of the record must be raised by post-conviction motion, not direct appeal, and the trial court properly conducted a Nelson inquiry before finding appellant lacked good cause to discharge court-appointed counsel.
[1] Ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are not apparent on the face of the appellate record and are not so obvious that prejudice is indisputable must be raised by…
[2] A trial court's Nelson inquiry regarding a defendant's request to discharge court-appointed counsel is adequate when properly and thoroughly conducted before proceeding t…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Generally, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal.”
Court citing Beazley v. State regarding the general rule that ineffective assistance claims require post-conviction relief
Luis Gomez appealed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and asserting the trial court failed to…
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
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 20, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D17-1147 Lower Tribunal No. 16-11036A ________________ Luis Gomez, Appellant, vs. The State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Alan S. Fine, Judge. Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third Region, and Philip L. Reizenstein, Chief Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Gabrielle Raemy Charest-Turken, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SALTER, SCALES, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J.
In this direct appeal, appellant Luis Alberto Gomez claims he received ineffective assistance of counsel. “Because appellant’s claims are not apparent on the face of the record, they must be addressed by motion for post-conviction relief.”
Latson v. State, 193 So. 3d 1070, 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), citing Beazley v. State,
148 So. 3d 552, 554 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Generally, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may not be raised on direct appeal.”); see also Aversano v.
State, 966 So. 2d 493, 494-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“With rare exceptions,
ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be raised in a motion for post-
conviction relief because they are generally fact-specific.”); Corzo v. State, 806 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be considered on direct appeal only “when the ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the prejudice caused by the conduct is indisputable, and a tactical explanation of the conduct is inconceivable.”).
Appellant further asserts that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct a Nelson1 inquiry prior to proceeding to trial. After carefully reviewing the record, “we conclude that the trial court conducted a proper and adequate inquiry before finding that [a]ppellant lacked good cause to discharge court-appointed counsel under Nelson.” Miller v. State, 764 So. 2d 640, 644 (Fla.
1st DCA 2000).
With regard to the remaining claims of error, as trial counsel made no specific and contemporaneous objections and the asserted errors “did not permeate or saturate the trial with such basic invalidity as to lead to a reversal regardless of a timely objection,” we conclude that affirmance is warranted. Brown v. State, 124
So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960) (articulating the standard for fundamental error); see also Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982) (“Furthermore, in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evans v. State, 273 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 274 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Ike Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1960)
- Corzo v. State, 806 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Aversano v. State, 966 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Sheena Latson v. State, 193 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- Beazley v. State, 148 So. 3d 552 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Miller v. State, 764 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)