Mackey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mackey v. State

687 So. 2d 974, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1217, 1997 WL 66554

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 1997

DocketNo. 96-0841

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 687 So. 2d 974 (Mackey 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

Mackey v. State, 687 So. 2d 974, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1217, 1997 WL 66554 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PARIENTE, Judge.

The sole issue raised on direct appeal from defendant’s convictions and sentences for armed burglary, attempted murder in the first degree and battery is defense counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to the admission of collateral crime evidence.

Unlike Gordon v. State, 469 So.2d 795, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 480 So.2d 1296 (Fla.1985), this was not a case of gross and patent ineffectiveness of counsel virtually conceded by the state. We affirm defendant’s conviction because there was no objection to the allegedly impermissible testimony. Our affirmance is without prejudice to defendant’s raising the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on collateral review by a rule 3.850 motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.

POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PARIENTE, Judge.

The sole issue raised on direct appeal from defendant’s convictions and sentences for armed burglary, attempted murder in the first degree and battery is defense counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to the admission of collateral crime evidence.

Unlike Gordon v. State, 469 So.2d 795, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 480 So.2d 1296 (Fla.1985), this was not a case of gross and patent ineffectiveness of counsel virtually conceded by the state. We affirm defendant’s conviction because there was no objection to the allegedly impermissible testimony. Our affirmance is without prejudice to defendant’s raising the ineffective assistance of counsel claim on collateral review by a rule 3.850 motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850.

POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 974, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 1217, 1997 WL 66554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackey-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack