Rooney v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rooney v. State

654 So. 2d 673, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5412, 1995 WL 302327

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 19, 1995

DocketNo. 93-701

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 654 So. 2d 673 (Rooney 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

Rooney v. State, 654 So. 2d 673, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5412, 1995 WL 302327 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Rooney appeals from a final judgment and sentence after being convicted of criminal mischief,¹ burglary of a dwelling,² arson,³ and [674]*674retaliation against a witness.⁴ He raises numerous points on appeal which we find without merit. He also argues on appeal that his trial counsel rendered such ineffective service that it likely affected the outcome of the trial. We do not reach that issue here because the effectiveness of Rooney’s trial counsel cannot be ascertained on the face of the record on appeal. Our affirmance in this case is without prejudice to Rooney to raise effectiveness vel non of his trial counsel pursuant to Florida rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1103, 103 S.Ct. 1802, 76 L.Ed.2d 366 (1983); Craven v. State, 624 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Gregory v. State, 588 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

W. SHARP, Judge.

Rooney appeals from a final judgment and sentence after being convicted of criminal mischief,¹ burglary of a dwelling,² arson,³ and [674]*674retaliation against a witness.⁴ He raises numerous points on appeal which we find without merit. He also argues on appeal that his trial counsel rendered such ineffective service that it likely affected the outcome of the trial. We do not reach that issue here because the effectiveness of Rooney’s trial counsel cannot be ascertained on the face of the record on appeal. Our affirmance in this case is without prejudice to Rooney to raise effectiveness vel non of his trial counsel pursuant to Florida rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1103, 103 S.Ct. 1802, 76 L.Ed.2d 366 (1983); Craven v. State, 624 So.2d 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Gregory v. State, 588 So.2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

AFFIRMED.

COBB and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 So. 2d 673, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5412, 1995 WL 302327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rooney-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack