RAMON PIMENTAL v. State

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 17, 2021
Docket21-0360
StatusPublished

This text of RAMON PIMENTAL v. State (RAMON PIMENTAL 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
RAMON PIMENTAL v. State, (Fla. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 17, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0360 Lower Tribunal No. F07-12440A ________________

Ramon Pimental, Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus.

Ramon Pimental, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael W. Mervine, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Before MILLER, GORDO, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Denied. See Pimental v. State, 301 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019);

Pimental v. State, 187 So. 3d 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Pimental v. Jones,

177 So. 3d 1270 (Fla. 2015); Pimental v. State, 195 So. 3d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA

2015); Pimental v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 574 U.S. 980, 135 S. Ct. 473, 190 L.

Ed. 2d 339 (2014); Pimental v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 560 F. App’x 942 (11th

Cir. 2014); Pimental v. State, 83 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Pimental v.

State, 59 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 2011); Pimental v. State, 50 So. 3d 1148 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2010); Pimental v. State, 20 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also

Knight v. State, 286 So. 3d 147, 151 (Fla. 2019) (“Properly understood, the

fundamental error test for jury instructions cannot be met where, as in this

case, there was no error in the jury instruction for the offense of conviction

and there is no claim that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support that

conviction. In such circumstances, one cannot plausibly claim that the

conviction ‘could not have been obtained’ without the erroneous lesser

included offense instruction or that the error vitiated the basic validity of the

trial.”); Marshall v. State, 240 So. 3d 111, 118 n.7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)

(Generally, “appellate counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to predict

future changes in the legal landscape that occur years after a defendant's

sentence and conviction become final.”).

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

Related

Pimental v. State
20 So. 3d 1012 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Pimental v. State
50 So. 3d 1148 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Ramon Pimental v. Florida Department of Corrections
560 F. App'x 942 (Eleventh Circuit, 2014)
Marshall v. State
240 So. 3d 111 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Pimental v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
135 S. Ct. 473 (Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
RAMON PIMENTAL v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramon-pimental-v-state-fladistctapp-2021.