Ezell v. State, 648 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Ezell v. State, 648 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Cole v. State (fladistctapp, 2010-06-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Cole v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ezell v. State, 648 So.2d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that the defendant could not show deficient performance if the evidence the defendant claims counsel should have sought to exclude was admissible).
cited Cited "see" Taltian v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ezell v. State, 648 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Holmes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Ezell v. State, 648 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
Claude EZELL, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
94-2338.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb 1, 1995.
648 So. 2d 1257
Barkdull, Cope and Goderich.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

[*1258] Claude Ezell, in pro. per.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, COPE and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court's denial of a rule 3.850 motion.

Appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine pursuant to Fla. Stat. 893.153(1)(b) and this court affirmed. See Ezell v. State, 634 So.2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). By this motion appellant alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in that counsel failed to object to, and exclude evidence that he had a large amount of money in his possession at the time of arrest.

The evidence was properly admitted at trial. See Williams v. State, 538 So.2d 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Thomas v. State, 564 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).[1] "Further, defendant's possession of cash was nonexpert evidence the jury was free to consider, along with the other competent evidence such as the amount, condition, sources, and given reasons for carrying the currency, in common sense resolution of the disputed issue." Lowder v. State, 589 So.2d 933, 936 (Fla. 3d DCA), cause dismissed, 598 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1992) (citation omitted).

Since the evidence was admissible at trial, appellant's counsel simply could not have been ineffective for failing to exclude same. See and compare Way v. Dugger, 568 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 1990).

Affirmed.

1 We are aware of the holdings in Barrett v. State, 605 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) and Lowder v. State, 589 So.2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA) cause dismissed 598 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1992) and hold that this case is distinguishable on the facts in that there was a nexus between the arrest and the money, and that the state did not use the evidence to support expert testimony.