Upshaw v. State

805 So. 2d 908, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14882, 2001 WL 1245364
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Upshaw v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 871 So. 2d 1015
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 19, 2001·No. No. 2D01-1055·Published

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Judge.

Ronnie Upshaw appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Pro[909]*909cedure 3.850 motion. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Upshaw was arrested for possession of cocaine and, based on the arrest, was adjudicated guilty of violation of probation. After Upshaw was sentenced for the violation of probation, the State nolle-prossed the possession charge. In his rule 3.850 motion, Upshaw claimed that his attorney was ineffective for failing to seek to suppress the evidence (cocaine) seized from Upshaw. In its order denying relief the trial court did not address the substance of this claim because the charge was nolle-prossed. However, because the charge was the basis of the probation revocation and Upshaw’s claim is facially sufficient, the claim must be addressed on its merits. See Williams v. State, 717 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

The remainder of Upshaw’s claims are without merit, and the trial court is affirmed in its denial of those claims.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.

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

Upshaw v. State, 805 So. 2d 908, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 14882, 2001 WL 1245364 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

805 So. 2d 908 (Upshaw v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. State
717 So. 2d 1066 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)