Peri v. State, 458 So. 2d 62

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the denial of a Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 motion based on the alleged ineffectiveness of appellate counsel. See Peri v. State, 412 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Because this claim may be asserted only in a habeas corpus proceeding in the appellate court, Smith v. State, 400 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981); Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla.1981), the order under review is affirmed without prejudice to the filing of such a petition.¹

Notes

1 . We do not believe that the record before us renders it appropriate to treat the present appeal as such a petition, as the appellant suggests. Cf. Smith v. State, supra; Roberts v. State, 378 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

Case Details

Case Name: Peri v. State

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Oct 23, 1984

Citations: 458 So. 2d 62; 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2251; 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15823; No. 84-791

Docket Number: No. 84-791

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.