McLaurn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McLaurn v. State

722 So. 2d 935, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15971, 1998 WL 883211

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 21, 1998

DocketNo. 98-372

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 722 So. 2d 935 (McLaurn 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

McLaurn v. State, 722 So. 2d 935, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15971, 1998 WL 883211 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case originated as an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, seeking a belated appeal based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to file a notice of appeal following an allegedly timely request. Appellant had further alleged that the trial court did not inform him of the right to appeal within 30 days. We treated this appeal as a petition under rule 9.140(j), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and issued an order to show cause. See, e.g., Hawkins v. State, 706 So.2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hammond v. State, 706 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Dubois v. State, 705 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Having considered the state’s response to the order to show cause, we conclude that appellant’s claim was time barred prior to the effective date of rule 9.140(j), and was not [936]*936revived by the creation of that rule, and deny the petition on that basis. See Finch v. State, 717 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

ERVIN, JOANOS and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case originated as an appeal from an order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, seeking a belated appeal based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to failure to file a notice of appeal following an allegedly timely request. Appellant had further alleged that the trial court did not inform him of the right to appeal within 30 days. We treated this appeal as a petition under rule 9.140(j), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and issued an order to show cause. See, e.g., Hawkins v. State, 706 So.2d 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hammond v. State, 706 So.2d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Dubois v. State, 705 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

Having considered the state’s response to the order to show cause, we conclude that appellant’s claim was time barred prior to the effective date of rule 9.140(j), and was not [936]*936revived by the creation of that rule, and deny the petition on that basis. See Finch v. State, 717 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

ERVIN, JOANOS and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

722 So. 2d 935, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 15971, 1998 WL 883211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaurn-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack