Panagiotakis v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Panagiotakis v. State

619 So. 2d 345, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5586, 1993 WL 167865

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1993

DocketNo. 93-00510

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 619 So. 2d 345 (Panagiotakis 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

Panagiotakis v. State, 619 So. 2d 345, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5586, 1993 WL 167865 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Panagiotakis timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.

The trial judge summarily denied Panagiotakis’ motion because he believed it to be a successive motion. However, Pana-giotakis’ prior postconviction, relief motion [346]*346was filed with respect to a different case. Therefore, the trial judge incorrectly denied the motion as successive. After considering Panagiotakis’ claims, we nevertheless affirm.

Panagiotakis claims that his counsel was ineffective in failing to raise due process and objective entrapment defenses. The facts presented to support this allegation do not establish that these were viable defenses. Consequently, counsel’s performance was not deficient; therefore, Pana-giotakis is' not entitled to relief on that claim. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Similarly, Panagiotakis does not set forth facts to support his contention that his counsel was ineffective in failing to interview the police informant. Strickland.

Finally, Panagiotakis’ claim that the trial judge erred in failing to sua sponte dismiss the information on the basis of objective entrapment could have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore procedurally barred. See Medina v. State, 573 So.2d 293 (Fla.1991).

Affirmed.

DANAHY, A.C.J. and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Panagiotakis timely appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.

The trial judge summarily denied Panagiotakis’ motion because he believed it to be a successive motion. However, Pana-giotakis’ prior postconviction, relief motion [346]*346was filed with respect to a different case. Therefore, the trial judge incorrectly denied the motion as successive. After considering Panagiotakis’ claims, we nevertheless affirm.

Panagiotakis claims that his counsel was ineffective in failing to raise due process and objective entrapment defenses. The facts presented to support this allegation do not establish that these were viable defenses. Consequently, counsel’s performance was not deficient; therefore, Pana-giotakis is' not entitled to relief on that claim. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Similarly, Panagiotakis does not set forth facts to support his contention that his counsel was ineffective in failing to interview the police informant. Strickland.

Finally, Panagiotakis’ claim that the trial judge erred in failing to sua sponte dismiss the information on the basis of objective entrapment could have been raised on direct appeal and is therefore procedurally barred. See Medina v. State, 573 So.2d 293 (Fla.1991).

Affirmed.

DANAHY, A.C.J. and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 So. 2d 345, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5586, 1993 WL 167865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panagiotakis-v-state-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack