Wiggs v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wiggs v. State

53 So. 3d 384, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 585, 2011 WL 252750

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 2011

DocketNo. 2D09-4515

StatusPublished

This text of 53 So. 3d 384 (Wiggs 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

Wiggs v. State, 53 So. 3d 384, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 585, 2011 WL 252750 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

James Wiggs appeals the nonsummary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On appeal, he contends his counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that the State had no other evidence beyond his confession to prove the crime of throwing a deadly missile. Wiggs asserts that the State would have been unable to prove the corpus delicti of the crime and that if he had been made aware of this fact, he would not have pleaded guilty to the charge. However, Wiggs did not raise this issue in his 3.850 motion, and consequently, counsel [385]*385was not asked about this claim at the evidentiary hearing. Wiggs may not a raise a postconviction claim for the first time on appeal, see Franqui v. State, 965 So.2d 22, 32 (Fla.2007), and we therefore decline to address this issue. We affirm all other issues without comment.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

James Wiggs appeals the nonsummary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. On appeal, he contends his counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that the State had no other evidence beyond his confession to prove the crime of throwing a deadly missile. Wiggs asserts that the State would have been unable to prove the corpus delicti of the crime and that if he had been made aware of this fact, he would not have pleaded guilty to the charge. However, Wiggs did not raise this issue in his 3.850 motion, and consequently, counsel [385]*385was not asked about this claim at the evidentiary hearing. Wiggs may not a raise a postconviction claim for the first time on appeal, see Franqui v. State, 965 So.2d 22, 32 (Fla.2007), and we therefore decline to address this issue. We affirm all other issues without comment.

ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ„ Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 So. 3d 384, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 585, 2011 WL 252750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiggs-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack