Burks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burks v. State

57 So. 3d 972, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4348, 2011 WL 1135381

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 2011

DocketNo. 3D09-2348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 So. 3d 972 (Burks 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

Burks v. State, 57 So. 3d 972, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4348, 2011 WL 1135381 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Brandon Burks argues in this appeal that defense counsel’s failure to object and move for a mistrial when the prosecutor asked the arresting officer whether the defendant made any statements when he had not, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel cognizable on direct appeal. For a claim to be cognizable on direct appeal, the ineffectiveness must be apparent on the face of the record, such that “it would be a waste of judicial resources to require the trial court to address the issue.” Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987); see also Eure v. State, 764 So.2d 798, 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We do not agree that the one question and answer, although clearly improper, rises to that level, where it was never repeated nor referred to in the State’s closing argument.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Brandon Burks argues in this appeal that defense counsel’s failure to object and move for a mistrial when the prosecutor asked the arresting officer whether the defendant made any statements when he had not, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel cognizable on direct appeal. For a claim to be cognizable on direct appeal, the ineffectiveness must be apparent on the face of the record, such that “it would be a waste of judicial resources to require the trial court to address the issue.” Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987); see also Eure v. State, 764 So.2d 798, 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We do not agree that the one question and answer, although clearly improper, rises to that level, where it was never repeated nor referred to in the State’s closing argument.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 So. 3d 972, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4348, 2011 WL 1135381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burks-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack