ARNOLD I. WATKINS
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.
Appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal because such claims are more effectively raised in a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850.
[1] Appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, as such claims are more appropriately raise…
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 intelligence“Appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal because such claims are more effectively raised in a motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850.”
Court's statement of the governing legal principle in dismissing the petition
Arnold Watkins was convicted of drug-related charges and filed a habeas corpus petition claiming ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for faili…
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 Manifest Injustice Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D18-3649 _____________________________
ARNOLD I. WATKINS,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent. _____________________________
Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel— Original Jurisdiction.
May 13, 2019
PER CURIAM.
Arnold Watkins petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he is entitled to a new trial on drug-related charges based on ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Specifically, Watkins argues that appellate counsel should have raised on direct appeal a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to advise Watkins of an entrapment defense. We dismiss the petition as untimely filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5). In so doing, we reject Watkins’ claim that the twoyear filing deadline should be excused in this case to correct a manifest injustice. “Appellate counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal because such claims are more effectively raised in a
2
motion for postconviction relief under rule 3.850.” Stewart v. Crosby, 880 So. 2d 529, 531 (Fla. 2004).
DISMISSED.
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and RAY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Arnold I. Watkins, pro se, Petitioner.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.