Coney v. State, 3D06-705.
| Decision Date | 06 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D06-705.,3D06-705. |
| Citation | 937 So.2d 255 |
| Parties | Antonio CONEY, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Antonio Coney, in proper person.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Thomas C. Mielke, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before WELLS, CORTIÑAS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
The petitioner, Antonio Coney ("Coney"), seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Rule 9.141(c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. As we conclude that Coney's claim is without merit, we deny the petition.
On January 10, 2003, Coney pled nolo contendere to the charges of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery of a pregnant victim. In return for his plea, Coney received 85 days in the county jail, followed by two years of probation.
On May 28, 2003, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed against Coney, alleging that he committed the offense of grand theft auto. The affidavit was amended four times, the fourth time occurring at the probation violation hearing on January 21, 2004. The second amended affidavit alleged that Coney violated his probation by being arrested for two separate offenses of strong arm robbery and an additional charge of robbery/carjacking. The final amended affidavit included the previously stated violations, that Coney was arrested for these offenses, but also added two violations, alleging that Coney committed or was a principal to the commission of these offenses. At the conclusion of the probation violation hearing, the court found Coney in violation of the terms of his probation agreement, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to twelve years incarceration. On June 15, 2005, this court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed. Coney v. State, 905 So.2d 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Coney asserts that appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to raise what Coney contends was a properly preserved violation of his constitutional due process rights, and is therefore, entitled to a reversal of the lower court's ruling. The basis of this claim is appellate counsel's failure to raise as untimely the State's fourth amended affidavit filed on the day of the hearing, which Coney claims was not provided to his trial counsel within a reasonable time to allow him to prepare for the probation violation hearing. In response, the State argues that Coney's claim is procedurally barred since it deals with issues which could have been raised on direct appeal. We are unpersuaded by the State's argument, as appellate counsel's failure to raise the issue on direct appeal is the basis of the instant petition for habeas corpus. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russ v. State
...1204 (Fla.2005); Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 643 (Fla.2000); Brown v. State, 967 So.2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Coney v. State, 937 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Petition 1. The others involved penile or oral contact, as to which simple union with the victim is sufficient under the l......
-
Valencia v. State, 3D07-315.
...for habeas corpus. The defendant's appellate counsel was not ineffective. See Valle v. Moore, 837 So.2d 905 (Fla.2002); Coney v. State, 937 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Price v. State, 931 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 3d DCA Petition denied. ...
-
Gregory v. State, 3D06-1604.
...and do not present a question of fundamental error. See Valle v. Moore, 837 So.2d 905, 907-08 (Fla.2002); see also Coney v. State, 937 So.2d 255, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). We, therefore, deny the Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied. ...