Legal Opinion

Philpot v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 18, 2013No. 3D11-2462PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

We affirm the denial of Vincent Philpot’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion, although for grounds different than those stated by the trial court. The motion should have been summarily denied as untimely or successive. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b), (f); see also Philpot v. State, 668 So.2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Even if an evidentiary hearing was appropriate, the record reflects no deficient performance of counsel or any resulting prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Affirmed.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Philpot v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
  2. Vincent Philpot v. State of FloridaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2025