Legal Opinion

Kidwell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 24, 1981No. 80-637PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Affirmed. The points raised by Kidwell on this appeal were not preserved below by appropriate objection, motion, or request for instruction. State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla.1980); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla.1978); Bailey v. State, 393 So.2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Mead v. State, 381 So.2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Simpson v. State, 211 So.2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). Kidwell’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective cannot properly be raised for the first time on direct appeal and is a matter to be presented to the trial court under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. State…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Clark v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1978
  2. State v. BarberSupreme Court of Florida · 1974
  3. State v. CumbieSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
  4. Simpson v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
  5. Bailey v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1983
  2. Walker v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API