ULRICK WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court affirmed the denial of one ground for post-conviction relief but reversed and remanded for the trial court to address an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim that was not previously addressed.
A trial court must address a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a rule 3.850 motion, even if other grounds are properly denied.
[1] A claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is not cognizable in a rule 3.850 post-conviction motion and must be raised in the appellate court to which the app…
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 intelligenceWatson filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, raising multiple grounds including ineffective assist…
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 Ineffective Assistance Of Trial Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant challenges the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of ground one. In ground two, Appellant alleges a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The trial court properly denied the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as that claim is not cognizable in a rule 3.850 motion. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(3) (“Petitions seeking belated appeal or alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel shall be filed in the appellate court to which the appeal was or should have been taken”). However, Appellant also alleges that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call witnesses and that trial counsel was the reason he lost at trial. This specific claim was never addressed by the trial court. Thus, we reverse and remand for the trial court to address the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. See Gonzalez v. State, 829 So.2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (affirming denial of post-conviction in part, but reversing and remanding for trial court to rule on issue not addressed in order).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part, with directions.
WOLF, BILBREY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.