Inchierchiere v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Inchierchiere v. State

214 So. 3d 690, 2017 WL 1174763, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4186

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 29, 2017

DocketNo. 4D16-4141

StatusPublished

This text of 214 So. 3d 690 (Inchierchiere 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

Inchierchiere v. State, 214 So. 3d 690, 2017 WL 1174763, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4186 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Affirmed. As to the claim that counsel failed to file a timely motion to disqualify the trial judge, claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel do not present a valid claim, as there is no constitutional right to collateral counsel. Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190, 1203 (Fla. 2005). Further, appellant wanted to disqualify the judge from ruling on a motion to mitigate a sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). A rule 3.800(c) motion is a collateral proceeding, “not a de novo proceeding complete ‘with the full array of due process rights.’” Fox v. State, 166 So.3d 894, 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting St. Lawrence v. State, 785 So.2d 728, 729-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)). Thus, his claim against collateral counsel is not cognizable. Zack, 911 So.2d at 1203. Appellant’s remaining claims are conclusively refuted by the record.

Warner, Taylor and May, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Affirmed. As to the claim that counsel failed to file a timely motion to disqualify the trial judge, claims of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel do not present a valid claim, as there is no constitutional right to collateral counsel. Zack v. State, 911 So.2d 1190, 1203 (Fla. 2005). Further, appellant wanted to disqualify the judge from ruling on a motion to mitigate a sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c). A rule 3.800(c) motion is a collateral proceeding, “not a de novo proceeding complete ‘with the full array of due process rights.’” Fox v. State, 166 So.3d 894, 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting St. Lawrence v. State, 785 So.2d 728, 729-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)). Thus, his claim against collateral counsel is not cognizable. Zack, 911 So.2d at 1203. Appellant’s remaining claims are conclusively refuted by the record.

Warner, Taylor and May, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 So. 3d 690, 2017 WL 1174763, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inchierchiere-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack