Soloman v. State

906 So. 2d 330, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10467, 2005 WL 1557870
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 6, 2005
DocketNo. 3D03-1782
StatusPublished

This text of 906 So. 2d 330 (Soloman 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
Soloman v. State, 906 So. 2d 330, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10467, 2005 WL 1557870 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cazu Soloman was convicted and sentenced for first degree murder after a jury trial. On appeal, he raises three issues; we, however, address only one. For various reasons, Soloman claims that his trial counsel was ineffective. This claim is not cognizable on direct appeal because Solo-man’s right to relief is not apparent on the face of the record before us.1 See Mizell v. State, 716 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Caison v. State, 695 So.2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

Finding no merit to the remaining issues raised on this appeal, we affirm.

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

Related

Mizell v. State
716 So. 2d 829 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Caison v. State
695 So. 2d 872 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Burgess v. State
884 So. 2d 453 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
906 So. 2d 330, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10467, 2005 WL 1557870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soloman-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.