Manka v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manka v. State

874 So. 2d 13, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3749, 2004 WL 574530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 24, 2004

DocketNo. 4D03-1821

StatusPublished

This text of 874 So. 2d 13 (Manka 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

Manka v. State, 874 So. 2d 13, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3749, 2004 WL 574530 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Henry Jude Manka appeals a trial court order which denied his motion for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of the motion as it was not properly verified. See Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211 (Fla.1986); Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1986). Our af-firmance is on the merits as well, except for appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to request a complete self defense jury instruction. We find that this claim was sufficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and that the trial court erred in rejecting it simply because appellant’s co-defendant was convicted in a separate trial where a self defense instruction had been given to the jury.

Therefore, we affirm with prejudice as to all of appellant’s other claims, but without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a properly verified, amended motion for post conviction relief within thirty days of this court’s mandate, raising the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to request a self defense jury instruction.

SHAHOOD, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Henry Jude Manka appeals a trial court order which denied his motion for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of the motion as it was not properly verified. See Gorham v. State, 494 So.2d 211 (Fla.1986); Scott v. State, 464 So.2d 1171 (Fla.1986). Our af-firmance is on the merits as well, except for appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to request a complete self defense jury instruction. We find that this claim was sufficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and that the trial court erred in rejecting it simply because appellant’s co-defendant was convicted in a separate trial where a self defense instruction had been given to the jury.

Therefore, we affirm with prejudice as to all of appellant’s other claims, but without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a properly verified, amended motion for post conviction relief within thirty days of this court’s mandate, raising the claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to request a self defense jury instruction.

SHAHOOD, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

874 So. 2d 13, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3749, 2004 WL 574530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manka-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack