11 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Corzo v. Stategreen2 sentences2021“On rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this rule when the ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the prejudice caused by the conduct is indisputable, and a tactical explanation for the conduct is inconceivable.” Id. 2021“On rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this rule when the ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the prejudice caused by the conduct is indisputable, and a tactical explanation for the conduct is inconceivable.” Id. | 4 | 9 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2017The general rule is that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable on direct appeal unless “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 ad *481 dress the issue.” Cephus v. State, 52 So.3d 46, 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (quoting Smith v. State, 998 So.2d 516, 522 (Fla. 2008)); Corzo v. State, 806 So.2d 642, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“On rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this [general] rule when the ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the pr 2011However, “[o]n rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this rule when the ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the prejudice caused by the conduct is indisputable, and a tactical explanation for the conduct is inconceivable.” Id.; see also Smith v. State, 998 So.2d 516, 523 (Fla.2008) (concluding an appellate court may address an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal only in “the rare case[] where both prongs of Strickland — the error and the prejudice-are manifest in the record”). | 2 | 2 |
Cephus v. Stategreen1 sentence2017The general rule is that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is not cognizable on direct appeal unless “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 ad *481 dress the issue.” Cephus v. State, 52 So.3d 46, 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (quoting Smith v. State, 998 So.2d 516, 522 (Fla. 2008)); Corzo v. State, 806 So.2d 642, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“On rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this [general] rule when the ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the pr | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862 (Fla.1982); Ross, 726 So.2d at 318 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Salvatore Bagnara v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2018“On rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this rule when the ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the prejudice caused by the conduct is indisputable, and a tactical explanation 5 for the conduct is inconceivable.” Bagnara, 189 So. 3d at 171 (quoting Corzo v. State, 806 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). i) Failure to Move for a JOA on the Battery on an Emergency Medical Care Provider Count [F]ailure to move for a judgment of acquittal when the State has not proved an essential element of its case, when it is clear that the State could not reope 2018As a result, “[a]ppellate courts do not ordinarily address ineffective assistance of counsel concerns until a defendant seeks postconviction relief because such courts are limited to reviewing the record directly before them.” Monroe, 191 So. 3d at 403 . 5 “On rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this rule when the ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the prejudice caused by the conduct is indisputable, and a tactical explanation for the conduct is inconceivable.” Bagnara, 189 So. 3d at 171 (quoting Corzo v. State, 806 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 2d DC | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Ralph Monroe v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2018As a result, “[a]ppellate courts do not ordinarily address ineffective assistance of counsel concerns until a defendant seeks postconviction relief because such courts are limited to reviewing the record directly before them.” Monroe, 191 So. 3d at 403 . 5 “On rare occasions, the appellate courts make an exception to this rule when the ineffectiveness is obvious on the face of the appellate record, the prejudice caused by the conduct is indisputable, and a tactical explanation for the conduct is inconceivable.” Bagnara, 189 So. 3d at 171 (quoting Corzo v. State, 806 So. 2d 642, 645 (Fla. 2d DC | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ross v. State
green
1 sentence2002See, e.g., Stewart v. State, 420 So.2d 862 (Fla.1982); Ross, 726 So.2d at 318 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.