Hammer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hammer v. State

543 So. 2d 437, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1247, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2838, 1989 WL 52160

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1989

DocketNo. 88-02784

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 543 So. 2d 437 (Hammer 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

Hammer v. State, 543 So. 2d 437, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1247, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2838, 1989 WL 52160 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Beverly Hammer, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon her after a jury found her guilty of trafficking in cocaine. After reviewing the record on appeal and considering the briefs and argument presented by counsel, we find the points raised by the appellant are without merit and, accordingly, affirm. As to the appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, such claims are not generally reviewable by direct appeal. See Kelley v. State, 486 So.2d 578, 585 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 871, 107 S.Ct. 244, 93 L.Ed.2d 169 (1986). The appellant should, accordingly, raise this claim by motion in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Beverly Hammer, challenges the judgment and sentence imposed upon her after a jury found her guilty of trafficking in cocaine. After reviewing the record on appeal and considering the briefs and argument presented by counsel, we find the points raised by the appellant are without merit and, accordingly, affirm. As to the appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, such claims are not generally reviewable by direct appeal. See Kelley v. State, 486 So.2d 578, 585 (Fla.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 871, 107 S.Ct. 244, 93 L.Ed.2d 169 (1986). The appellant should, accordingly, raise this claim by motion in the trial court pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

Affirmed.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

543 So. 2d 437, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1247, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2838, 1989 WL 52160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammer-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack