Valdes v. State

26 So. 3d 712, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 980, 2010 WL 395584
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Valdes v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 970 So. 2d 414
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 5, 2010·No. 2D09-3076·Published

Opinion

*713 WHATLEY, Judge.

Reinaldo Valdes appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which raised two claims that he was improperly convicted of failure to appear. We affirm because both of these claims are cognizable only on direct appeal. However, it appears that Valdes has until March 25, 2010, to file another rule 3.850 motion. If his allegations are true, Valdes may have a viable claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of an available defense. See Grosvenor v. State, 874 So.2d 1176, 1181 (Fla.2004). Such a claim would not be considered successive.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

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

Valdes v. State, 26 So. 3d 712, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 980, 2010 WL 395584 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

26 So. 3d 712 (Valdes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grosvenor v. State
874 So. 2d 1176 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)