MONTREAL BROWN, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida appellate court denied Brown's consolidated petitions challenging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, finding none of the claims regarding jury instructions, verdict forms, and sentencing were meritorious.
Appellate counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to raise unmeritorious claims regarding jury instructions, verdict forms, and sentencing.
[1] Appellate counsel is not ineffective for declining to raise claims that lack merit.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMontreal Brown was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment as a prison releasee reoffender for armed robbery and armed carjacking. His direct app…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Verdict Form cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, Judge.
Montreal Brown (“Brown”) was convicted and sentenced as a prison releasee reof-fender to life imprisonment after a finding of guilt for armed robbery and armed carjacking. This court affirmed the judgment and sentence on August 11, 2004. Brown v. State, 882 So. 2d 389, 2004 WL 2295139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (table). Since Brown’s direct appeal, he has filed (1) a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, which was denied by the trial court in a detailed twenty-nine page order and affirmed by this court, Brown v. State, 912 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (table); (2) a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), which was denied by the trial court and affirmed on appeal by this court, Brown v. State, 915 So. 2d 232, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); and (3) two petitions which have been consolidated and are the subject of our present review.
In the instant petitions, Brown raises several claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise various issues regarding the jury instructions, verdict forms, and the sentence imposed. Because we conclude that none of the claims raised are meritorious, appellate counsel cannot be faulted for failing to raise them. Groover v. Singletary 656 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla.1995).
Petitions denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Othlone Russ v. State, 971 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…James v. State, 901 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). No counsel is ineffective for failing to raise a point doomed at the outset. See Zack v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190, 1204 (Fla.2005); Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So. 2d 637, 643 (Fla.2000); Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Coney v. State, 937 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Petition denied. . The others involved penile or oral contact, as to which simple union with the victim is sufficient under the law. See § 794.01 l(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1999). .…
Authorities Cited
- Groover v. Singletary, 656 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1995)
- Montreal Brown v. State, 915 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)