Wright v. State

797 So. 2d 647, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15016, 2001 WL 1266668
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wright v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 739 So. 2d 1230
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 24, 2001·No. No. 3D01-1611·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We deny the petition of Daniel Wright for a writ of habeas corpus whereby he alleges that his appellate counsel was ineffective. We have taken judicial notice of the briefs in the direct appeal, Wright v. State, 759 So.2d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Assuming that the points were raised by a proper motion for judgment of acquittal, it is plain that the evidence was legally sufficient to go to the jury on the question of whether the defendant was correctly identified as the perpetrator of the charged crimes. The evidence regarding the offense of burglary was legally sufficient under the test outlined in Foster v. State, 220 So.2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).

Petition denied.

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

Wright v. State, 797 So. 2d 647, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15016, 2001 WL 1266668 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

797 So. 2d 647 (Wright v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foster v. State
220 So. 2d 406 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Wright v. State
759 So. 2d 730 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)