Ward v. State

19 So. 3d 1060, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14708, 2009 WL 3149447

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion. Although Appellant raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his motion, on appeal he only addresses one point in his pro se brief — the alleged failure of the trial court to give him the opportunity to correct his facially deficient motion. Because it is evident that the trial court addressed the merits of Appellant’s claims and did not base its ruling on ostensible pleading deficiencies, we affirm as to Appellant’s one point on appeal. We have not reviewed the other issues presented to the trial court, however, because Appellant abandoned these issues by not addressing them in his brief. Austin v. State, 968 So.2d 1049, 1049 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). We are aware of the intra-district conflict between Austin and Webb v. State, 757 So.2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), on this point. We approve Austin and recede from Webb to the extent of such conflict.

AFFIRMED.

MONACO, C.J., GRIFFIN, SAWAYA, PALMER, ORFINGER, LAWSON, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur. TORPY, J., concurs, and concurs specially in part and dissents in part, with opinion, in which EVANDER, J., concurs.