Hammett v. State
This text of 804 So. 2d 522 (Hammett 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.
Opinion
Allen A. HAMMETT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
*523 Kurt Erlenbach, Titusville, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.
GRIFFIN, J.
Appellant, Allen A. Hammett, appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. We affirm for two reasons: first, ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel is not a cognizable claim. Waterhouse v. State, 792 So.2d 1176, 1193 (Fla. 2001); State v. Riechmann, 777 So.2d 342, 364 n. 22 (Fla.2000). Second, there is no colorable merit to the claim.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
804 So. 2d 522, 2001 WL 1657206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammett-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.