Court Opinion

ID: 9963038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 15:03:44.204783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:39.697928
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                         No. 1D2023-0183
                  _____________________________

ASHLEY BRITT MCARTHUR,

    Petitioner,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Respondent.
                  _____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—
Original Jurisdiction.

                          April 24, 2024

PER CURIAM.

     Having considered the averments of all three grounds in the
petition, the court finds the petition to be facially without merit.

    DISMISSED.

B.L. THOMAS and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur; BILBREY, J., concurs in
result.
               _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________
BILBREY, J., concurring in result.

     The result of the majority’s decision dismissing the petition is
that Petitioner will not have his sentence vacated and the matter
remanded for a new trial. I agree with that result but arrive at it
differently than the majority.        The petition for ineffective
assistance of appellant counsel complies with the pleading
requirements of rule 9.141(d), Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure. The petition sets forth a prima facie basis for relief —
that is the petition is legally sufficient in its pleadings to allege
grounds for relief if true. See Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055,
1061 (Fla. 2000) (holding that in a postconviction case the
petitioner “bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case
based upon a legally valid claim”). So we then examine the merits
of the allegations and look at the record from the trial and
subsequent direct appeal to determine whether we should grant
relief. See Moorer v. State, 330 So. 3d 136, 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
(denying a petition for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
when “the pleading requirements of Rule 9.141(d)” were met but
“[b]ased on a review of the record” the claims lacked merit). Since
the petition here is facially valid in that it alleges two bases for
relief, but it is without merit since when we look into the record
appellate counsel on the direct appeal was not ineffective, I would
deny rather than dismiss the petition.
                   _____________________________

William R. Ponall of Ponall Law, P.A., Maitland; Lisabeth J. Fryer
and Laura L. Cepero of Lisabeth J. Fryer, P.A., Sanford, for
Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

                                 2