Adkinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Adkinson v. State

401 So. 2d 882, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20600

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 1981

DocketNo. 80-1951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 401 So. 2d 882 (Adkinson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adkinson v. State, 401 So. 2d 882, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20600 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a pro se appeal by David Allen Adkinson from denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Adkinson alleges violation of the speedy trial rule and ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.

An issue which could and should have been raised on direct appeal is not a proper subject matter for post-conviction motion. Foster v. State, 400 So.2d 1 (Fla.1981) (1981); Pell v. State, 393 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (violation of speedy trial rule could have been raised on direct appeal). Cf. Snow v. State, 399 So.2d 466 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (appeal of imposition of sentence allegedly in violation of speedy trial rule not foreclosed by plea of guilty).

Appellant failed to meet his burden of establishing ineffectiveness of counsel. See, e. g., Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981). See also Foster v. State, supra; Washington v. State, 397 So.2d 285 (Fla.1981).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI