Davis v. Rouse

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Davis v. Rouse

548 So. 2d 287, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2071, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4916, 1989 WL 101311

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 5, 1989

DocketNo. 89-1790

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 548 So. 2d 287 (Davis v. Rouse) 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

Davis v. Rouse, 548 So. 2d 287, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2071, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4916, 1989 WL 101311 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Anthony Davis makes two claims. First, as to the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to file a motion with the trial court under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Second, we treat the claim of improper denial of jury instruction as a claim of inadequate appellate counsel in the earlier appeal, which was disposed of pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The petition in this case does not warrant relief. The record of the prior appeal reveals that the jury instruction was not refused through a misapprehension of law as petitioner contends, but rather because there was no evidence to support an instruction on “attempt.” See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.510. The petition is therefore denied with respect to the jury instruction.

Petition denied without prejudice as to the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; petition denied on the merits with respect to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Anthony Davis makes two claims. First, as to the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to file a motion with the trial court under Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Second, we treat the claim of improper denial of jury instruction as a claim of inadequate appellate counsel in the earlier appeal, which was disposed of pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The petition in this case does not warrant relief. The record of the prior appeal reveals that the jury instruction was not refused through a misapprehension of law as petitioner contends, but rather because there was no evidence to support an instruction on “attempt.” See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.510. The petition is therefore denied with respect to the jury instruction.

Petition denied without prejudice as to the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; petition denied on the merits with respect to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 So. 2d 287, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2071, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4916, 1989 WL 101311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-rouse-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack