Tuggerson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tuggerson v. State

813 So. 2d 975, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2274, 2002 WL 341062

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 6, 2002

DocketNo. 1D01-3549

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 813 So. 2d 975 (Tuggerson 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

Tuggerson v. State, 813 So. 2d 975, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2274, 2002 WL 341062 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion and amended motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant’s motions alleged, among other claims, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him his current conviction could be used to enhance a future sentence for a crime subsequently committed. Appellant alleges the trial court erred by summarily denying the claims on grounds of untimeliness, because the claims were timely filed pursuant to Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999). We agree with Appellant that the claims were timely filed. See Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992). However, we affirm the trial court because Appellant failed to allege a colorable claim for relief. See Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); State v. Fox, 659 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Sherwood v. State, 743 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

BROWNING, J.

Appellant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion and amended motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Appellant’s motions alleged, among other claims, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him his current conviction could be used to enhance a future sentence for a crime subsequently committed. Appellant alleges the trial court erred by summarily denying the claims on grounds of untimeliness, because the claims were timely filed pursuant to Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999). We agree with Appellant that the claims were timely filed. See Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992). However, we affirm the trial court because Appellant failed to allege a colorable claim for relief. See Major v. State, 790 So.2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); State v. Fox, 659 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Sherwood v. State, 743 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

813 So. 2d 975, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 2274, 2002 WL 341062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuggerson-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack