Benton v. State

729 So. 2d 411, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1402, 1999 WL 69564
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Benton v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 708 So. 2d 1002
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 15, 1999·No. No. 97-1415·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Benton has filed a direct appeal from his conviction pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere. He alleges his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his claim that he should have been permitted to withdraw his plea because he had been confused by the effects of psychotropic medications. Generally, such claims must be raised in collateral proceedings, and are not cognizable on direct appeal. See Wuornos v. State, 676 So.2d 966, 972 (Fla.1995); Loren v. State, 601 So.2d 271, 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Unlike Cody v. State, 678 So.2d 9, 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), the question of trial counsel’s effectiveness was not raised below. We find no merit to appellant’s remaining argument.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.

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

Benton v. State, 729 So. 2d 411, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1402, 1999 WL 69564 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

729 So. 2d 411 (Benton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wuornos v. State
676 So. 2d 966 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Loren v. State
601 So. 2d 271 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Cody v. State
678 So. 2d 9 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)