Teale v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Teale v. State

566 So. 2d 536, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5748, 1990 WL 110284

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 6, 1990

DocketNo. 88-2579

StatusPublished

This text of 566 So. 2d 536 (Teale 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

Teale v. State, 566 So. 2d 536, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5748, 1990 WL 110284 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

NIMMONS, Judge.

This is an Anders appeal. We have considered the myriad points and arguments raised by the appellant in his numerous pro se submissions variously denominated as “initial brief,” “supplemental initial brief,” cross answer brief,” “supplemental brief,” various “notices to the court,” “motion of supplemental authorities,” and “petition for writ of mandamus” (improperly denominated as such). We have also considered the Public Defender’s amended initial brief and supplemental brief. We find the points raised in such submissions to be meritless.

Earlier in this appeal, appellant raised, pro se, issues pertaining to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, appellant subsequently indicated in a written submission that he wished to withdraw such claims without prejudice to the filing of a 3.850 motion. Inasmuch as such claims are ordinarily 3.850 matters, Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862 (Fla.1982), and inasmuch as there is no such claim, apparent to us on the record before us as would entitle the appellant to relief on ineffective assistance grounds, compare, Gordon v. State, 469 So.2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), we decline to consider appellant’s ineffective assistance claims in the instant appeal.

Appellant has also claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in the instant appeal. We find such claim to be without merit and reject the same.

Accordingly, the judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.

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

NIMMONS, Judge.

This is an Anders appeal. We have considered the myriad points and arguments raised by the appellant in his numerous pro se submissions variously denominated as “initial brief,” “supplemental initial brief,” cross answer brief,” “supplemental brief,” various “notices to the court,” “motion of supplemental authorities,” and “petition for writ of mandamus” (improperly denominated as such). We have also considered the Public Defender’s amended initial brief and supplemental brief. We find the points raised in such submissions to be meritless.

Earlier in this appeal, appellant raised, pro se, issues pertaining to ineffective assistance of trial counsel. However, appellant subsequently indicated in a written submission that he wished to withdraw such claims without prejudice to the filing of a 3.850 motion. Inasmuch as such claims are ordinarily 3.850 matters, Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862 (Fla.1982), and inasmuch as there is no such claim, apparent to us on the record before us as would entitle the appellant to relief on ineffective assistance grounds, compare, Gordon v. State, 469 So.2d 795 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), we decline to consider appellant’s ineffective assistance claims in the instant appeal.

Appellant has also claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in the instant appeal. We find such claim to be without merit and reject the same.

Accordingly, the judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.

SHIVERS, C.J., and ERVIN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 So. 2d 536, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5748, 1990 WL 110284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teale-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack