Alphonzo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alphonzo v. State

815 So. 2d 737, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716, 2002 WL 818395

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2002

DocketNo. 4D02-852

StatusPublished

This text of 815 So. 2d 737 (Alphonzo 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

Alphonzo v. State, 815 So. 2d 737, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716, 2002 WL 818395 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raised numerous grounds of trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as claims of involuntariness, in his untimely motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We find that all but one of the claims are clearly timely under Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), but they are either insufficient or conclusively refuted by the record. The remaining claim is not traditionally cognizable under coram nobis and is thus untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief.

However, we note that Appellant’s motion was styled with five case numbers. The trial court’s order is styled with only one case number, 91-11490-CF. Our af-firmance relates to both the substantive and violation of probation cases styled under case number 91-11490-CF, as the trial court’s order addressed both cases. However, our affirmance is without prejudice to the Appellant challenging any orders entered with respect to the other case numbers.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raised numerous grounds of trial court error and ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as claims of involuntariness, in his untimely motion for postconviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We find that all but one of the claims are clearly timely under Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), but they are either insufficient or conclusively refuted by the record. The remaining claim is not traditionally cognizable under coram nobis and is thus untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of relief.

However, we note that Appellant’s motion was styled with five case numbers. The trial court’s order is styled with only one case number, 91-11490-CF. Our af-firmance relates to both the substantive and violation of probation cases styled under case number 91-11490-CF, as the trial court’s order addressed both cases. However, our affirmance is without prejudice to the Appellant challenging any orders entered with respect to the other case numbers.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

815 So. 2d 737, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5716, 2002 WL 818395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alphonzo-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack