Gordon v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gordon v. State

705 So. 2d 697, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 697, 1998 WL 31522

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 1998

DocketNo. 97-217

StatusPublished

This text of 705 So. 2d 697 (Gordon 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

Gordon v. State, 705 So. 2d 697, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 697, 1998 WL 31522 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Defendant has moved for rehearing of our opinion. We grant the motion for the pur[698]*698pose of clarifying the basis for our decision. The following opinion substitutes for our original opinion.

This is a direct appeal of a judgment and sentence entered pursuant to a guilty plea. The only error urged on appeal is that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because of defense counsel’s conflict of interest. Although this may be viewed as an indirect challenge to the voluntary and intelligent character of the defendant’s plea, pursuant to Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979), there is no indication in the record that there was an effort by defendant to withdraw the plea prior to entry of the judgment and sentence on direct appeal. In his motion for rehearing, defendant puts forth that he did seek to withdraw his plea in his rule 3.850 motion for collateral relief but this is the alternative procedure to direct appeal discussed in Robinson. Id. at 903. In this direct appeal, there is no basis to reverse the judgment. Id. at 902. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this issue on appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.

Defendant has moved for rehearing of our opinion. We grant the motion for the pur[698]*698pose of clarifying the basis for our decision. The following opinion substitutes for our original opinion.

This is a direct appeal of a judgment and sentence entered pursuant to a guilty plea. The only error urged on appeal is that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because of defense counsel’s conflict of interest. Although this may be viewed as an indirect challenge to the voluntary and intelligent character of the defendant’s plea, pursuant to Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979), there is no indication in the record that there was an effort by defendant to withdraw the plea prior to entry of the judgment and sentence on direct appeal. In his motion for rehearing, defendant puts forth that he did seek to withdraw his plea in his rule 3.850 motion for collateral relief but this is the alternative procedure to direct appeal discussed in Robinson. Id. at 903. In this direct appeal, there is no basis to reverse the judgment. Id. at 902. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this issue on appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

COBB and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 697, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 697, 1998 WL 31522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack