Valdes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Valdes v. State

26 So. 3d 712, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 980, 2010 WL 395584

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 2010

Docket2D09-3076

StatusPublished

This text of 26 So. 3d 712 (Valdes 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

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

Pincite

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

*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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 So. 3d 712, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 980, 2010 WL 395584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valdes-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack