DAVID B. ROBERTS
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.
A petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may be denied on the merits, which precludes future relitigation of the issue under res judicata or collateral estoppel doctrines.
[1] A merits-based denial of a petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel precludes future relitigation of the same issue under the doctrines of res judica…
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“a decision on an extraordinary writ petition that 'clearly shows that the issue was considered by the court on the merits' is deemed a decision 'which would later bar the litigant from presenting the issue under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel'”
The court cited Topps v. State to explain the preclusive effect of denying the petition on the merits.
David B. Roberts, proceeding pro se, filed a petition in the Florida District Court of Appeal, First District, alleging ineffective assistance of his …
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
Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel— Original Jurisdiction.
September 22, 2021 PER CURIAM.
The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits. See Topps v. State, 865 So. 2d 1253, 1258 (Fla. 2004) (explaining that a decision on an extraordinary writ petition that “clearly shows that the issue was considered by the court on the merits” is deemed a decision “which would later bar the litigant from presenting the issue under the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel”).
RAY, JAY, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ David B. Roberts, pro se, Petitioner. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.