Eneias v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eneias v. State

696 So. 2d 1365, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8498, 1997 WL 414293

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1192

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 696 So. 2d 1365 (Eneias 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

Eneias v. State, 696 So. 2d 1365, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8498, 1997 WL 414293 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eneias appeals from a summary denial of his second motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging his 1992 conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. First he argues that his plea of guilty was involuntary because he was not informed he might be deported. Secondly he argues that his counsel was ineffective in misadvising him regarding the consequences of his plea.

The first claim is identical to the one raised in his first rule 3.850 motion filed with this court.¹ Thus, it is barred as successive. See Stroble v. State, 689 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Henry v. State, 679 So.2d 885 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 686 So.2d 578 (Fla.1996).The ineffective assistance of counsel claim could or should have been raised in the first rule 3.850 proceeding. Thus it too is improper and successive. Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991); Scott v. State, 656 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP, GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Eneias appeals from a summary denial of his second motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, challenging his 1992 conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance. First he argues that his plea of guilty was involuntary because he was not informed he might be deported. Secondly he argues that his counsel was ineffective in misadvising him regarding the consequences of his plea.

The first claim is identical to the one raised in his first rule 3.850 motion filed with this court.¹ Thus, it is barred as successive. See Stroble v. State, 689 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Henry v. State, 679 So.2d 885 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 686 So.2d 578 (Fla.1996).The ineffective assistance of counsel claim could or should have been raised in the first rule 3.850 proceeding. Thus it too is improper and successive. Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla.1991); Scott v. State, 656 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

AFFIRMED.

W. SHARP, GOSHORN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

696 So. 2d 1365, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 8498, 1997 WL 414293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eneias-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack