State v. Barber (1974)

Previously, the Florida Supreme Court had stated unconditionally that the issue of adequacy of representation by counsel “cannot properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal, since ... it is a matter that has not previously been ruled upon by the trial Court.” State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974) (citation, omitted). “[T]he interests of justice do not require review of counsel’s claimed inadequacy” on direct appeal because “Cr.P.R. 3.850 provides a means by w…

See Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987) (“A proper and more effective remedy is already available for ineffective assistance of trial counsel under rule 3.850.”); Barber, 301 So.2d at 9 (“3.850 provides a means by which this issue may properly be resolved in a correct procedural setting in the trial court where evidence may be taken.”).

Under Florida law, “an ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be treated on the merits on direct appeal only in the ‘rare’ instance where (1) the ineffectiveness is apparent on the face of the record, and (2) it would be ‘a waste of judicial resources to require the trial court to address the issue.’” Robards v. State, 112 So. 3d 1256, 1267 (Fla. 2013) (quoting State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974)).

This rule adheres to the general proposition that our review is limited to “only those questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was made.” State v. Barber, 301 So. 2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974) (citations omitted).

See Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 , 1078 n. 2 (Fla.2000); Kelley v. State, 486 So.2d 578, 585 (Fla.1986); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974); see also Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987).

See Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 , 1078 n. 2 (Fla.2000); Kelley v. State, 486 So.2d 578, 585 (Fla.1986); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974); see also Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987).

E.g., Martinez v. State, 761 So.2d 1074 , 1078 n. 2 (Fla.2000) ("With rare exception, ineffective assistance of counsel claims are not cognizable on direct appeal."); McKinney v. State, 579 So.2d 80, 82 (Fla.1991) ("Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not reviewable on direct appeal but are more properly raised in a motion for postconviction relief."); Kelley v. State, 486 So.2d 578, 585 (Fla.1986) (same); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974) (hol…

Ferguson v. State, 417 So.2d 639, 642 (Fla.1982)(holding that objections must be made with sufficient specificity to apprise the trial court of the potential error and to preserve the point for appellate review; general objections are insufficient); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974)(holding that "[a]n appellate court must confine itself to a review of only those questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was ma…

State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974).

In State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 8 (Fla.1974), the respondents were convicted of two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny.

In State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 8 (Fla.1974), the respondents were convicted of two counts of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny.

See Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974); Rios v. State, 730 So.2d 831, 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

As authority, the state cites State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974).

See Kelley v. State, 486 So.2d 578, 585 (Fla.1986); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974); see also Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987) ("There are rare exceptions where appellate counsel may successfully raise the issue on direct appeal because the ineffectiveness is apparent on the face of the record and it would be a waste of judicial resources to require the trial court to address the issue.") Because we are not presented with a case where ineffect…

State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974).

See Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla. 1987); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974).

State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 10 (Fla.1974); see also Henzel v. State, 390 So.2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 399 So.2d 1143 (Fla.1981).

State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974).

State v. Murray, 443 So.2d 955 (Fla.1984); Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862, 864 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1103 , 103 S.Ct. 1802 , 76 L.Ed.2d 366 (1983); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974); Gallon v. State, 455 So.2d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Johnson v. State, 427 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974).

Perri v. State, 441 So.2d 606, 607 (Fla.1983); State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974).

"An appellate court must confine itself to a review of only those questions which were before the trial court and upon which a ruling adverse to the appealing party was made." State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974).

State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974); State v. Jones, 204 So.2d 515, 519 (Fla. 1967).

In State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974) the Supreme Court said: * * * * * * "The construction placed upon F.A.R. 6.16 by the district court was erroneous.

State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974), and cases cited therein.

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1974) (ineffective assistance claim properly raised for first time in post-conviction relief petition).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Howard v. State, 462 So.2d 31 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974).

See F.B. v. State, 816 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(citing State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974)).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1974).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla.1974). * Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the trial court as to Count II is AFFIRMED.

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Dennis v. State, 696 So.2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

See Barber v. State, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1984).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1974) (question of adequacy of representation by counsel could not be raised for the first time on direct appeal from adverse judgment where the matter had not been previously ruled on by trial court).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985); Sundell v. State, 354 So.2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Crenshaw v. State, 490 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1974); Snead v. State, 415 So.2d 887 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d at 10 .

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1974).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Estrada v. State, 400 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); V.J.T. v. State, 390 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Daley v. State, 374 So.2d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); De La Cova v. State, 355 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Magueira v. State, 352 So.2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1974); Mancini v. State, 273 So.2d 371 (Fla. 1973); Estrada v. State, 400 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). [5] Since the totality of circumstances in the present case clearly demonstrates that the trial proceedings were tantamount to a nolo contendere plea, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether even though the proceedings are not deemed to be the functional equivalent of a guilty or nolo contendere plea, a defendant must, as some co…

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); Mancini v. State, 273 So.2d 371 (Fla.1973); Estrada v. State, 400 So.2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). .

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1974) and Roberts v. State, 402 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974).

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974); State v. Matera, 266 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972); Parks v. State, 301 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Chapman v. State, 300 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Parks v. State, 256 So.2d 40 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); and Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.

See State v. Barber, 301 So.2d 7 (Fla.1974).

See State v. Barber, Fla., 301 So.2d 7 (1974), and Terry v. State, Fla. App. (1st), 302 So.2d 142 (1974).

See State v. Barber, Fla. 1974, 301 So.2d 7 .