Ingvaldsen v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ingvaldsen v. State

478 So. 2d 510, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2576, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16836

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 20, 1985

DocketNo. 85-1708

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 510 (Ingvaldsen 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

Ingvaldsen v. State, 478 So. 2d 510, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2576, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16836 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Erling Ingvaldsen appeals the denial, without evidentiary hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief. We treat the first aspect of appellant’s motion, based upon newly discovered evidence, as a petition to this court for a writ of error coram nobis, Smith v. State, 400 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981), appeal after remand, 421 So.2d 146 (Fla.1982), and we deny the writ because the evidence is not “of such a vital nature that, had [it] been known to the trial court, [it] conclusively would have prevented entry of the judgment.” 400 So.2d at 960 (emphasis original). Appellant having failed to carry his burden in demonstrating ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the second basis for his rule 3.850 motion, we affirm the order appealed.

AFFIRMED; WRIT DENIED.

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Erling Ingvaldsen appeals the denial, without evidentiary hearing, of his motion for post-conviction relief. We treat the first aspect of appellant’s motion, based upon newly discovered evidence, as a petition to this court for a writ of error coram nobis, Smith v. State, 400 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981), appeal after remand, 421 So.2d 146 (Fla.1982), and we deny the writ because the evidence is not “of such a vital nature that, had [it] been known to the trial court, [it] conclusively would have prevented entry of the judgment.” 400 So.2d at 960 (emphasis original). Appellant having failed to carry his burden in demonstrating ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the second basis for his rule 3.850 motion, we affirm the order appealed.

AFFIRMED; WRIT DENIED.

ANSTEAD and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 510, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2576, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingvaldsen-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack