From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Iglesias v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 6, 1992
598 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 92-01244.

May 6, 1992.


Antonio Iglesias appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief in which he asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for not timely filing a notice of appeal as he had requested. State v. District Court of Appeals of Florida, First District, 569 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1990). The order denying the motion found that the motion was facially deficient.

Our review of the motion reveals that it substantially complies with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We point out that there is no requirement that the defendant set forth the basis for the appeal he sought. See Viqueira v. Roth, 591 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

Accordingly, we find that the appellant is entitled to an order granting the relief he requested. We reverse the order denying the motion for postconviction relief and direct that an order be entered granting a belated appeal of the judgment and sentence.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and BLUE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Iglesias v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
May 6, 1992
598 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Iglesias v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO IGLESIAS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: May 6, 1992

Citations

598 So. 2d 210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Orr v. State

"Failure to timely file a notice of appeal is per se ineffective assistance of counsel because a defendant is…

Stephenson v. State

See Lake v. Lake, 103 So.2d 639, 642 (Fla. 1958); Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b).…