Maddox v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maddox v. State

673 So. 2d 198, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5140, 1996 WL 257364

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 17, 1996·No. No. 96-721·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Aldric D. Maddox appeals an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Maddox’s motion alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly advise Maddox before he entered his guilty plea.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable in a Rule 3.800 proceeding. See, e.g:, Wiley v. State, 632 So.2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Additionally, construing Maddox’s motion as a Rule 3.850 motion would not be helpful since the motion would [199] be denied as successive and an abuse of procedure.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Aldric D. Maddox appeals an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. Maddox’s motion alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly advise Maddox before he entered his guilty plea.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable in a Rule 3.800 proceeding. See, e.g:, Wiley v. State, 632 So.2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Additionally, construing Maddox’s motion as a Rule 3.850 motion would not be helpful since the motion would [199] be denied as successive and an abuse of procedure.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Maddox v. State, 673 So. 2d 198, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5140, 1996 WL 257364 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

673 So. 2d 198 (Maddox v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related