Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

425 So. 2d 1189

Ford v. Wainwright

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided January 27, 1983

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-01-27

Relies on Ford v. Wainwright

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-01-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2006

9 state decisions

50198319902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered June 4,1982, 415 So.2d 76, an eviden-tiary hearing was conducted before the Honorable John J. Crews, as court-appointed commissioner, for the purpose of making findings of facts and conclusions of law, together with recommendations on the question of whether or not attorney Futch’s failure to file an appeal of petitioner’s criminal conviction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel depriving petitioner of his fundamental right to appeal.

¶2Judge Crews found that attorney Futch was retained at a reasonable fee of $150 to represent petitioner at sentencing; that at no time did counsel agree, nor was he ever employed to file notice of or to perfect an appeal; and that, while counsel did consult with both trial lawyers, he concluded that an appeal could not be successfully prosecuted and advised petitioner to apply to the presiding judge for appointment of a public defender if he decided to pursue his right to appeal. Based on the foregoing findings, Judge Crews concluded that attorney Futch’s failure to file an appeal of petitioner’s criminal conviction did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel depriving petitioner of his fundamental right to appeal.

¶3Petitioner has filed an exception to the report submitted by Judge Crews. We have considered same together with attorney Futch’s deposition of October 28, 1982 and conclude that there exists no inconsistency with the aforementioned findings and that attorney Futch timely rendered those services for which he was employed.

¶4Accordingly, the petition for writ of ha-beas corpus for a belated appeal is denied.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and McCORD and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
/425/so2d/1189 · .json · Public domain