Case Name: Vincent PHILPOT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2013-09-18
Citations: 120 So. 3d 1274
Docket Number: No. 3D11-2462
Parties: Vincent PHILPOT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before WELLS and LOGUE, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 120
Pages: 1274–1274

Head Matter:
Vincent PHILPOT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 3D11-2462.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 18, 2013.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Daniel Tibbitt, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Natalia Costea and Timothy Thomas, Assistant Attorney Generals, for appellee.
Before WELLS and LOGUE, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER 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.