Philpot v. State

120 So. 3d 1274, 2013 WL 5226684, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14820
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 18, 2013·No. No. 3D11-2462·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Vincent Philpot’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, although for grounds different than those stated by the trial court. The motion should have been summarily denied as untimely or successive. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b), (f); see also Philpot v. State, 668 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Even if an evidentiary hearing was appropriate, the record reflects no deficient performance of counsel or any resulting prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Affirmed.

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

Philpot v. State, 120 So. 3d 1274, 2013 WL 5226684, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14820 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

120 So. 3d 1274 (Philpot v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Vincent Philpot v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Philpot v. State
183 So. 3d 410 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)