Sanchez v. State

801 So. 2d 167, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16667, 2001 WL 1502836
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Sanchez v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 765 So. 2d 246
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 28, 2001·No. No. 2D00-1314·Published

Opinion

DAVIS, Judge.

Andrew Sanchez challenges the circuit court’s denial after a hearing of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion that alleged prosecutorial misconduct for comments made during the State’s closing argument. He argues that new case law entitles him to relief. However, because the case law cited by Sanchez does not reflect a new statement of the law, we affirm the trial court’s denial of his rule 3.850 motion.

Furthermore, any ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim that Sanchez might have raised in a 3.850 motion under Nahm v. State, 760 So.2d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), is now time-barred, unless he can demonstrate his entitlement to a belated 3.850 motion pursuant to Medrano v. State, 748 So.2d 986 (Fla.1999).

Affirmed.

BLUE, C.J., and STRINGER, J„ concur.

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

Sanchez v. State, 801 So. 2d 167, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16667, 2001 WL 1502836 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

801 So. 2d 167 (Sanchez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Medrano v. State
748 So. 2d 986 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)
Nahm v. State
760 So. 2d 253 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)