Case ID: so2d_466/html/1152-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Omar BLANCO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 84-949.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    March 27, 1985.
    Rehearing Denied May 1, 1985.
    Gene Reibman of Fiore, Bloomgarden, Forman & Reibman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Penny H. Brill, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant's convictions and sentences, finding no fundamental or harmful error in the various issues raised on appeal. Cf. Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981). We also specifically reject appellant’s contentions of incompetency of counsel, finding such claims patently invalid on the record before us. See State v. Eicher, 431 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Notwithstanding our affirmance of the convictions and sentences, we remand with directions that the provisions of the trial court’s order retaining jurisdiction over the appellant’s sentences be stricken.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

OPINION ON REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for rehearing and clarification to the extent that we agree with appellant that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was not directly raised on appeal. Our decision herein does not preclude appellant from maintaining any post-conviction relief proceedings as to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. We deny the petition for rehearing and clarification in all other respects.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.