Ball v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ball v. State

776 So. 2d 1116, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1253, 2001 WL 108875

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 2001

DocketNo. 5D00-2914

StatusPublished

This text of 776 So. 2d 1116 (Ball 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

Ball v. State, 776 So. 2d 1116, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1253, 2001 WL 108875 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the grounds -of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He then moved to dismiss it “and allow the [public defender] to perform her duties.... ” The lower court, without addressing the motion to dismiss, denied the petition as legally insufficient. On appeal, the petitioner now urges we should reverse because the lower court lacked jurisdiction over his petition. He also asks that we review his petition de novo. We elect to treat this appeal as a petition for habeas corpus for belated appeal filed in this court. As did the lower court, we find the petition to be meritless.

Petition DENIED.

PETERSON and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on the grounds -of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He then moved to dismiss it “and allow the [public defender] to perform her duties.... ” The lower court, without addressing the motion to dismiss, denied the petition as legally insufficient. On appeal, the petitioner now urges we should reverse because the lower court lacked jurisdiction over his petition. He also asks that we review his petition de novo. We elect to treat this appeal as a petition for habeas corpus for belated appeal filed in this court. As did the lower court, we find the petition to be meritless.

Petition DENIED.

PETERSON and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

776 So. 2d 1116, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 1253, 2001 WL 108875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ball-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.