Camellon v. State

922 So. 2d 228, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 20235, 2005 WL 3536099

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this purported habeas corpus proceeding, Israel Camellón claims that he was denied due process by not having ap pellate counsel appointed during an evi-dentiary hearing of a post-conviction relief motion. We observe, however, that not only is Camellon’s petition for writ of ha-beas corpus procedurally barred, the record reflects that no request was made by Camellón for a court appointed counsel for his post-conviction evidentiary hearing, thus the court cannot be said to have abused its discretion by not appointing counsel.¹

The petition is denied.

Footnotes

1

. Wheeler v. State, 807 So.2d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).