Hampton v. Dugger

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hampton v. Dugger

509 So. 2d 1229, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1630, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9199

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1987

DocketNo. 87-172

StatusPublished

This text of 509 So. 2d 1229 (Hampton v. Dugger) 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

Hampton v. Dugger, 509 So. 2d 1229, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1630, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9199 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Judge.

Hampton, whose conviction was affirmed by this court in Hampton v. State, 485 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), files a petition for habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

A person convicted of a crime, whose conviction has been affirmed on appeal and who seeks relief from the conviction or sentence on the ground of ineffectiveness of counsel on appeal must show, first, that there were specific errors of such magnitude that it can be said that they deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance; and second, that the failure or deficiency caused prejudicial impact on the appellant by compromising the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the outcome under the governing standards of decision. Johnson v. Wainwright, 463 So.2d 207, 209 (Fla.1985). Because the allegations of the petition herein do not meet this standard, the petition must be denied.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

MILLS, Judge.

Hampton, whose conviction was affirmed by this court in Hampton v. State, 485 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), files a petition for habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

A person convicted of a crime, whose conviction has been affirmed on appeal and who seeks relief from the conviction or sentence on the ground of ineffectiveness of counsel on appeal must show, first, that there were specific errors of such magnitude that it can be said that they deviated from the norm or fell outside the range of professionally acceptable performance; and second, that the failure or deficiency caused prejudicial impact on the appellant by compromising the appellate process to such a degree as to undermine confidence in the fairness and correctness of the outcome under the governing standards of decision. Johnson v. Wainwright, 463 So.2d 207, 209 (Fla.1985). Because the allegations of the petition herein do not meet this standard, the petition must be denied.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 So. 2d 1229, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1630, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 9199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hampton-v-dugger-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack