McCLATCHET v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McCLATCHET v. State

23 So. 3d 861, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19617, 2009 WL 4827082

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 2009

Docket4D08-1219

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 So. 3d 861 (McCLATCHET 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

McCLATCHET v. State, 23 So. 3d 861, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 19617, 2009 WL 4827082 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

GERBER, J.

The defendant below was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant’s appellate counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), filed a brief stating that he is unable in good faith to argue that the record presents any point of reversible error.

The defendant, pro se, filed a brief arguing that the state’s evidence was insufficient to prove the crime. After a thorough review of the record, we find the state’s evidence was sufficient. The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal.

The defendant also argues his trial counsel was ineffective for not timely retrieving surveillance footage from the gas station where the police arrested him. However, “ineffective assistance of counsel will only be addressed on direct appeal ... when the facts giving rise to the claim are apparent on the face of the record, a conflict of interest is shown, or prejudice to the defendant is shown.” Jones v. State, 815 So.2d 772, 772 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). None of those circumstances exist here.

Affirm,ed.

POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.

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