Philpot v. State

Full title: Vincent PHILPOT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Date published: Sep 18, 2013

120 So. 3d 1274 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. 3D11–2462.

2013-09-18

Vincent PHILPOT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Nushin Sayfee, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Daniel Tibbitt, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Natalia Costea and Timothy Thomas, Assistant Attorney Generals, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami–Dade County, Nushin Sayfee, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Daniel Tibbitt, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Natalia Costea and Timothy Thomas, Assistant Attorney Generals, for appellee.
Before WELLS and LOGUE, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Vincent Philpot's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, although for grounds different than those stated by the trial court. The motion should have been summarily denied as untimely or successive. SeeFla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b), (f); see also Philpot v. State, 668 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Even if an evidentiary hearing was appropriate, the record reflects no deficient performance of counsel or any resulting prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Affirmed.