Fricano v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fricano v. State

652 So. 2d 1182, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2382, 1995 WL 96888

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 1995

DocketNo. 95-00352

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 652 So. 2d 1182 (Fricano 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

Fricano v. State, 652 So. 2d 1182, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2382, 1995 WL 96888 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Frank Frieano appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court summarily denied the motion on the ground that it was untimely. Although the motion was filed several days late, it was notarized in the prison on the last day for filing. Mr. Frica-no’s motion for rehearing, while not attaching the prison mail logs, does allege under oath that he has satisfied the mailbox rule of Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992). Thus, we are concerned that the basis for this summary denial may be incorrect.

Nevertheless, we have reviewed the seven grounds contained in the motion. Grounds three through six were raised and rejected on direct appeal. Grounds two and seven are matters which should have been raised, if ever, on direct appeal. Ground seven is without legal merit. Finally, the lengthy allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel contained in ground one are factually insufficient to support relief under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Frank Frieano appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court summarily denied the motion on the ground that it was untimely. Although the motion was filed several days late, it was notarized in the prison on the last day for filing. Mr. Frica-no’s motion for rehearing, while not attaching the prison mail logs, does allege under oath that he has satisfied the mailbox rule of Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla.1992). Thus, we are concerned that the basis for this summary denial may be incorrect.

Nevertheless, we have reviewed the seven grounds contained in the motion. Grounds three through six were raised and rejected on direct appeal. Grounds two and seven are matters which should have been raised, if ever, on direct appeal. Ground seven is without legal merit. Finally, the lengthy allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel contained in ground one are factually insufficient to support relief under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Affirmed.

PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 So. 2d 1182, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2382, 1995 WL 96888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fricano-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack