Cowan v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cowan v. State

725 So. 2d 1153, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14060, 1998 WL 770630

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 1998

DocketNo. 97-02577

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 725 So. 2d 1153 (Cowan 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

Cowan v. State, 725 So. 2d 1153, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14060, 1998 WL 770630 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence E. Cowan’s attorney filed an appeal of Cowan’s sentencing on remand pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there is no arguable merit to the challenge of Cowan’s sentence. We agree and affirm the habitual offender sentence in this possession and delivery of cocaine case.

Additionally, Cowan filed a pro se brief in which he raised several issues that are procedurally barred because they could have been ruled upon in the original appeal. See Williams v. State, 686 So.2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), review denied, 694 So.2d 739 (Fla.1997). As to Cowan’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, that claim is not a cognizable issue on direct appeal. See Lawrence v. State, 691 So.2d 1068, 1074 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 205, 139 L.Ed.2d 141 (1997). However, Co-wan may raise this issue pursuant to a rule 3.850 motion, if he does so within two years of his judgment and sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).

PARKER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence E. Cowan’s attorney filed an appeal of Cowan’s sentencing on remand pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there is no arguable merit to the challenge of Cowan’s sentence. We agree and affirm the habitual offender sentence in this possession and delivery of cocaine case.

Additionally, Cowan filed a pro se brief in which he raised several issues that are procedurally barred because they could have been ruled upon in the original appeal. See Williams v. State, 686 So.2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), review denied, 694 So.2d 739 (Fla.1997). As to Cowan’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, that claim is not a cognizable issue on direct appeal. See Lawrence v. State, 691 So.2d 1068, 1074 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 205, 139 L.Ed.2d 141 (1997). However, Co-wan may raise this issue pursuant to a rule 3.850 motion, if he does so within two years of his judgment and sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b).

PARKER, C.J., and CAMPBELL and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 So. 2d 1153, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14060, 1998 WL 770630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowan-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack