Crump v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crump v. State

412 So. 2d 441, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20648

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1545

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 412 So. 2d 441 (Crump 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

Crump v. State, 412 So. 2d 441, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20648 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant, Eddie W. Crump, of burglary; and he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. After this court affirmed Crump’s conviction in Crump v. State, No. 78-2066 (Fla.4th DCA May 14, 1980), he filed a pro se motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, attaching pertinent parts of the record or files, or specifically delineating the issues for this court.¹ Crump appeals.

In his motion Crump alleged fifteen errors and all but one “were or could have been raised on direct appeal and therefore are foreclosed in this proceeding for collateral review. Adams v. State, 380 So.2d 423 (Fla.1980); Henry v. State, 377 So.2d 692 (Fla.1979); Sullivan v. State, 372 So.2d 938 (Fla.1979).” Meeks v. State, 382 So.2d 673, 675 (Fla.1980). Although the remaining allegation, ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, is subject to our review,² it is legally insufficient under Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981). Since we affirm on matters of law, there is no need to remand for the attachments of files or records as required by Rule 3.850. Edwards v. State, 364 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted appellant, Eddie W. Crump, of burglary; and he was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. After this court affirmed Crump’s conviction in Crump v. State, No. 78-2066 (Fla.4th DCA May 14, 1980), he filed a pro se motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, attaching pertinent parts of the record or files, or specifically delineating the issues for this court.¹ Crump appeals.

In his motion Crump alleged fifteen errors and all but one “were or could have been raised on direct appeal and therefore are foreclosed in this proceeding for collateral review. Adams v. State, 380 So.2d 423 (Fla.1980); Henry v. State, 377 So.2d 692 (Fla.1979); Sullivan v. State, 372 So.2d 938 (Fla.1979).” Meeks v. State, 382 So.2d 673, 675 (Fla.1980). Although the remaining allegation, ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, is subject to our review,² it is legally insufficient under Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981). Since we affirm on matters of law, there is no need to remand for the attachments of files or records as required by Rule 3.850. Edwards v. State, 364 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

AFFIRMED.

LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 So. 2d 441, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crump-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack