Battles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Battles v. State

668 So. 2d 333, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1482, 1996 WL 72288

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1996

DocketNo. 95-3000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 668 So. 2d 333 (Battles 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

Battles v. State, 668 So. 2d 333, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1482, 1996 WL 72288 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, in which he sought a belated appeal based upon ineffective assistance of counsel in that he “at all times desired to appeal the judgment of conviction and sentence, but his trial counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal.” We affirm because the motion fails to allege that appellant timely requested his attorney to file a notice of appeal. See Gilliam v. State, 611 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Harris v. State, 596 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We do so without prejudice to appellant filing a sworn motion containing legally sufficient allegations.

To the extent appellant’s motion can be construed as raising other grounds, we affirm because those claims are barred by the two-year time limitation imposed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and the proscription against successive motions. See Hickman v. State, 581 So.2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order summarily denying his motion for postconviction relief, in which he sought a belated appeal based upon ineffective assistance of counsel in that he “at all times desired to appeal the judgment of conviction and sentence, but his trial counsel failed to file a timely notice of appeal.” We affirm because the motion fails to allege that appellant timely requested his attorney to file a notice of appeal. See Gilliam v. State, 611 So.2d 90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Harris v. State, 596 So.2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We do so without prejudice to appellant filing a sworn motion containing legally sufficient allegations.

To the extent appellant’s motion can be construed as raising other grounds, we affirm because those claims are barred by the two-year time limitation imposed by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and the proscription against successive motions. See Hickman v. State, 581 So.2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 333, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1482, 1996 WL 72288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battles-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack