RIGOBERTO CORDERO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1996-03-06
No. 95-1754
Before BARKDULL, NESBITT, and GERSTEN, JJ.
669 So. 2d 1075 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal or in denying an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel.


Headnotes

[1] A motion for judgment of acquittal is properly denied when an eyewitness's positive identification is sufficient to support a conviction.

[2] A court must accept a police officer's uncontroverted and credible identification of a defendant.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

An arresting officer testified that he saw the appellant throw a handgun from a moving car during a pursuit. The appellant was convicted of possession…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
GERSTEN, Judge.

GERSTEN, Judge.

Appellant, Rigoberto Cordero (“Cordero”), appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We affirm.

At trial, the arresting officer testified that during pursuit, he saw Cordero throw a handgun out of the window of a moving car. At the close of the State’s ease, the defense moved for judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. After deliberation, the jury returned a guilty verdict.

Before sentencing, Cordero filed a handwritten motion alleging specific instances which deprived him of effective trial counsel. The trial court treated Cordero’s motion as a notice of appeal and denied him an evidentiary hearing.

Cordero contends that the trial court erred by: (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; and (2) by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether his trial counsel effectively represented him.

Cordero was not entitled to a judgment of acquittal. An appellate court cannot disregard an eyewitness’s positive identification. Smith v. State, 221 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Moreover, a court must accept a police officer’s uncontroverted and credible identification. State v. Fernandez, 526 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), cause dismissed, 531 So. 2d 1352 (Fla.1988). Here, the arresting officer’s testimony was sufficient to support conviction.

Further, we affirm the trial court s denial of an evidentiary hearing on Cordero’s motion at this time. Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are appealable only if the facts of the complaint are evident from the record, the defendant shows prejudice, or the defendant alleges a conflict of interest. McKinney v. State, 579 So. 2d 80 (Fla.1991); Gregory v. State, 588 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Here, Cordero relies on facts not facially apparent from the record. Further, he has failed to show that the jury would not have convicted him had his trial counsel’s actions been different. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Given these circumstances, the trial court did not err in denying him an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Ojeda, 147 So. 3d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
    …no such evidence. See State v. Fernandez, supra; see also State v. Dickson, 35 So. 3d 1027, 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); State v. Wong, 990 So. 2d 1154,1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); State v. Casey, 821 So. 2d 1187, 1188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Cordero v. State, 669 So. 2d 1075,1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); State v. G.H., 549 So. 2d 1148,1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Moreover, Detective Orenstein and Officer Benjamin had every right to proceed to the front door of the house where Detective Orenstein thought Ojeda might be found. It…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw