Kidwell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kidwell v. State

394 So. 2d 526, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19567

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 24, 1981·No. No. 80-637·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The points raised by Kidwell on this appeal were not preserved below by appropriate objection, motion, or request for instruction. State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1980); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978); Bailey v. State, 393 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Mead v. State, 381 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Simpson v. State, 211 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Kidwell’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective cannot properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal and is a matter to be presented to the trial court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Valero v. State, 393 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. The points raised by Kidwell on this appeal were not preserved below by appropriate objection, motion, or request for instruction. State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1980); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978); Bailey v. State, 393 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Mead v. State, 381 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Simpson v. State, 211 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Kidwell’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective cannot properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal and is a matter to be presented to the trial court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Valero v. State, 393 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Kidwell v. State, 394 So. 2d 526, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19567 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

394 So. 2d 526 (Kidwell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related