Hollingsworth v. State

772 So. 2d 580, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15406, 2000 WL 1741700
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hollingsworth v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 802 So. 2d 1210
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 28, 2000·No. No. 1D00-2236·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Leo C. Hollingsworth, appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for post-conviction relief. He raised seven claims for relief, including four claims on ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the denial of the first three claims because they involve matters that either were or could have been raised on direct appeal.1 We also affirm the denial of the four claims of ineffective assistance because they were either improper attempts to seek a second appeal couched as ineffective assistance claims2 or did not contain sufficient allegations of deficient performance or prejudice.3

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.

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

Hollingsworth v. State, 772 So. 2d 580, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 15406, 2000 WL 1741700 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

772 So. 2d 580 (Hollingsworth v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Williams v. State
642 So. 2d 67 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Rivera v. State
717 So. 2d 477 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
Smith v. State
445 So. 2d 323 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1983)
Teffeteller v. Dugger
734 So. 2d 1009 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Thompson v. State
759 So. 2d 650 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)