Ortiz v. State
19 So. 3d 434, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14504, 2009 WL 3102717
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ortiz v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 968 So. 2d 681 →
Opinion
The contentions raised on appeal were not preserved below and do not present fundamental error. Moreover, the allegations concerning the adequacy of trial counsel’s representation do not fall within the exception to the rule that the issue is not cognizable on direct appeal. See Smith v. State, 998 So.2d 516, 522-523 (Fla.2008); Smith v. State, — So.3d -, 2009 WL 2777100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). The convictions and sentence are therefore affirmed without prejudice to an application for Rule 3.850 relief.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ortiz v. State, 19 So. 3d 434, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14504, 2009 WL 3102717 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).
19 So. 3d 434 (Ortiz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Smith v. State
25 So. 3d 577 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Smith v. State
998 So. 2d 516 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)