Enamorado v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Enamorado v. State

733 So. 2d 1164, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8639, 1999 WL 435184

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 30, 1999·No. No. 98-0900·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s claim that he was entitled to more peremptory challenges as a matter of right was not presented to the trial court, and is thus not properly preserved for appellate review. See Maio v. State, 531 So.2d 1055, 1056-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Verreautt v. State, 411 So.2d 234, 234-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

We decline to entertain on this direct appeal appellant’s alternative claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that appellant was entitled to ten peremptory challenges, rather than six. This ruling is without prejudice to appellant to pursue a motion for postconviction relief in the trial court. We express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s claim that he was entitled to more peremptory challenges as a matter of right was not presented to the trial court, and is thus not properly preserved for appellate review. See Maio v. State, 531 So.2d 1055, 1056-57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Verreautt v. State, 411 So.2d 234, 234-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

We decline to entertain on this direct appeal appellant’s alternative claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that appellant was entitled to ten peremptory challenges, rather than six. This ruling is without prejudice to appellant to pursue a motion for postconviction relief in the trial court. We express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.

Affirmed.

Enamorado v. State, 733 So. 2d 1164, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 8639, 1999 WL 435184 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

733 So. 2d 1164 (Enamorado v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related