Luttrell v. State

513 So. 2d 1298, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2286
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 16, 1987
Docket86-2632
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 513 So. 2d 1298 (Luttrell 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
Luttrell v. State, 513 So. 2d 1298, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2286 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

513 So.2d 1298 (1987)

George Milton LUTTRELL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-2632.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 16, 1987.
Rehearing Denied October 22, 1987.

*1299 James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Lauren Hafner Sewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.

Appellant first contends that his sentence for attempted second-degree murder is illegal in that it should not have been enhanced from a second-degree felony to a first-degree felony because the jury did not specifically find that he used a weapon in the commission of the offense. This point is without merit because the jury's verdict specifically referred to the information which charged appellant with attempted first-degree murder with a firearm. See Alejo v. State, 483 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (defendant's sentence for second-degree murder could not be enhanced to life felony where jury's verdict neither referred to use of weapon nor mentioned information which charged defendant with use of knife on commission of offense). Accordingly, the trial court was correct in denying this part of appellant's motion.

Appellant next contends that the trial court erred in limiting the evidentiary hearing on his motion to only one of thirty-two allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. We have examined the allegations and conclude that they are facially insufficient in that they do not fulfill the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's summary denial of these allegations.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.

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

Related

TONY HOPPS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Curls v. State
216 So. 3d 761 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Knight v. State
965 So. 2d 323 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Thompson v. State
862 So. 2d 955 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Tucker v. State
726 So. 2d 768 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
State v. Hargrove
694 So. 2d 729 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Harris v. State
638 So. 2d 199 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
McCollough v. State
612 So. 2d 697 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Chapman v. State
597 So. 2d 431 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Small v. State
556 So. 2d 780 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
State v. Jones
536 So. 2d 1161 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Marshall v. State
529 So. 2d 797 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Douglas v. State
523 So. 2d 704 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
513 So. 2d 1298, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luttrell-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.