MICHELLE CONTRERAS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
This text of MICHELLE CONTRERAS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA (MICHELLE CONTRERAS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 26, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-2065 Lower Tribunal No. F20-9772A ________________
Michelle Contreras, Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida, Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa Tinkler Mendez, Judge.
Black Srebnick, and Benjamin S. Waxman, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.
MILLER, J. Appellant, Michelle Contreras, challenges her convictions and
sentences for trafficking in illegal narcotics, conspiring to traffic in illegal
narcotics, and use of a two-way communications device to commit the
trafficking offense. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm without
prejudice to raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in a timely
motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.850. See Steiger v. State, 328 So. 3d 926, 929 (Fla. 2021) (holding
“unpreserved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised or
result in reversal on direct appeal” absent a showing of fundamental error);
see also Britton v. State, 414 So. 2d 638, 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“[T]he
order of presentation of evidence and witnesses is largely a function of the
trial court’s discretion; this discretion is broad enough to allow the state to
introduce, after the defendant’s case, evidence not strictly in rebuttal, so long
as the evidence was admissible in the main case.”); Lewis v. State, 711 So.
2d 205, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (concluding prosecutor’s comments during
closing arguments that bolstered victim testimony and attacked defense
counsel were harmless error given overwhelming evidence of defendant’s
guilt).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
MICHELLE CONTRERAS v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michelle-contreras-v-the-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2023.