Dutton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dutton v. State

89 So. 3d 963, 2012 WL 1393477, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6317

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 2012

DocketNo. 1D11-5871

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 So. 3d 963 (Dutton 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

Dutton v. State, 89 So. 3d 963, 2012 WL 1393477, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6317 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Charles Dutton, Jr., presents a timely claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He asserts that his appellate counsel failed to properly argue that the trial court erred in imposing a three year minimum mandatory sentence under the Law Enforcement Protection Act (“LEPA”), section 775.0823, Florida Statutes. However, because the trial court was required by section 316.1935(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to impose the minimum mandatory term complained of, petitioner suffered no prejudice as a consequence of counsel’s alleged deficiency. Accordingly, the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is DENIED on the merits.

Nonetheless, because the portion of petitioner’s written judgment and sentence identifying LEPA as the basis for the minimum mandatory term is an obvious clerical error, we direct the trial court to correct the judgment and sentence to reflect that the minimum mandatory term was in fact imposed pursuant to section 316.1935(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

PADOVANO, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Charles Dutton, Jr., presents a timely claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He asserts that his appellate counsel failed to properly argue that the trial court erred in imposing a three year minimum mandatory sentence under the Law Enforcement Protection Act (“LEPA”), section 775.0823, Florida Statutes. However, because the trial court was required by section 316.1935(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to impose the minimum mandatory term complained of, petitioner suffered no prejudice as a consequence of counsel’s alleged deficiency. Accordingly, the petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is DENIED on the merits.

Nonetheless, because the portion of petitioner’s written judgment and sentence identifying LEPA as the basis for the minimum mandatory term is an obvious clerical error, we direct the trial court to correct the judgment and sentence to reflect that the minimum mandatory term was in fact imposed pursuant to section 316.1935(3)(b), Florida Statutes.

PADOVANO, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 So. 3d 963, 2012 WL 1393477, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 6317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dutton-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack