Cottrell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cottrell v. State

734 So. 2d 1206, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9117, 1999 WL 454507

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1999

DocketNo. 99-0625

StatusPublished

This text of 734 So. 2d 1206 (Cottrell 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

Cottrell v. State, 734 So. 2d 1206, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9117, 1999 WL 454507 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the. denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court was correct in concluding that none of the allegations in the petition stated a claim for habeas relief.

However, the allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the erroneous score sheet calculations might be proper subjects for post-conviction relief if they were to be raised in a properly sworn motion that complies with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (1999). Affirmance is therefore without prejudice to the petitioner to file such a motion within the time remaining under that rule. On the record before us, we can make no prediction as to whether either of those claims may have merit.

WARNER, C.J., GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the. denial of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. The trial court was correct in concluding that none of the allegations in the petition stated a claim for habeas relief.

However, the allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and the erroneous score sheet calculations might be proper subjects for post-conviction relief if they were to be raised in a properly sworn motion that complies with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 (1999). Affirmance is therefore without prejudice to the petitioner to file such a motion within the time remaining under that rule. On the record before us, we can make no prediction as to whether either of those claims may have merit.

WARNER, C.J., GUNTHER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 So. 2d 1206, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9117, 1999 WL 454507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottrell-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.