JULIE LANE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court properly denied postconviction relief where the record supported the finding that trial counsel's failure to raise the knock-and-announce issue was not deficient performance or prejudicial.
Julie Lane was convicted after jury trial of three counts of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. She subsequently filed a motion for postco…
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 Attempted Murder Of A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JULIE LANE, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-3981 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Decision filed February 8, 2019 3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam County, Scott C. Dupont, Judge. Kevin R. Monahan, Palatka, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Roark Wall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
LAMBERT and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. EVANDER, C.J., concurs, with opinion.
2
Case No. 5D17-3981
EVANDER, C.J., concurring.
Appellant was convicted, after a jury trial, of three counts of attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. This court affirmed those convictions. Lane v. State, 168 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).
Subsequently, Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging that her trial counsel failed to properly raise the issue of whether law enforcement officers complied with section 933.09, Florida Statutes (2011), Florida’s “knock and announce” statute, when they entered the mobile home where the events leading to Appellant’s charges took place. The motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. I believe the record amply supports the trial court’s decision. I would suggest that a larger concern is whether the original trial judge properly ruled on certain jury instruction issues raised at trial by defense counsel—issues that were not raised on direct appeal.