Martinelli v. State

467 So. 2d 841, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1093, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13750
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 1, 1985·No. No. 85-271·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In his motion, appellant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to discover that “[t]his case was a prime case of entrapment.” However, appellant did not comply with Rule 3.850 in that his motion contained no facts which indicated that he may have been entitled to a defense of entrapment, or which otherwise supported his allegation. The other allegations contained in appellant’s motion are without merit.

Accordingly, the order denying post conviction relief is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

Martinelli v. State, 467 So. 2d 841, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1093, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13750 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

467 So. 2d 841 (Martinelli v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Manley v. State
605 So. 2d 1327 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Romano v. State
562 So. 2d 406 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)