From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bond v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 7, 1998
717 So. 2d 83 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

No. 98-1058.

Opinion filed August 7, 1998. JULY TERM 1998.

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, A. Thomas Mihok, Judge.

Carl D. Bond, Raiford, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kelli R. Orndorff, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.


Bond appeals from the summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 for post-conviction relief. In a lengthy, documented and well-researched order, the trial court dealt with the ten different issues Bond raises in this case. We affirm.

Bond has had generous review and access to the appellate process. Originally, he was convicted of two counts of committing a lewd act in the presence of a child. This court affirmed one conviction and remanded for resentencing. Bond v. State, 642 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1194 (1995). On remand the trial court again sentenced Bond as an habitual offender on one count, but the written sentence erroneously reflected a sentence on both counts. This court struck the superfluous sentence and count. Bond v. State, 675 So.2d 184 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 684 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1996). Bond then unsuccessfully filed a petition for all writs jurisdiction in the Florida Supreme Court. Bond v. Fifth District Court of Appeal, 699 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1997).

In this proceeding, Bond alleges eight issues of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We agree with the trial court that Bond failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) and Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981). Many of the issues raised could or should have been raised as errors on direct appeal. See Kelley v. State, 569 So.2d 754 (Fla. 1990); White v. Dugger, 565 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1990). Others are refuted by the record.

We also find that Bond's claims of fundamental error concerning prosecutorial misconduct and improper jury instructions are without merit. These are also issues which could or should have been raised on direct appeal. See Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1995); Manley v. State, 705 So.2d 691 (Fla.5th DCA 1998).

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bond v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Aug 7, 1998
717 So. 2d 83 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Bond v. State

Case Details

Full title:Carl D. BOND, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Aug 7, 1998

Citations

717 So. 2d 83 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Bond v. Moore

On September 18, 1997, Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief with the state trial court under…