Court Opinion

ID: 9411276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 15:04:44.2915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:06.170660
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed July 26, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D21-2065
                      Lower Tribunal No. F20-9772A
                          ________________

                          Michelle Contreras,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         The State of Florida,
                                  Appellee.

      An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marisa
Tinkler Mendez, Judge.

     Black Srebnick, and Benjamin S. Waxman, for appellant.

      Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kseniya Smychkouskaya,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

     MILLER, J.
          Appellant, Michelle Contreras, challenges her convictions and

sentences for trafficking in illegal narcotics, conspiring to traffic in illegal

narcotics, and use of a two-way communications device to commit the

trafficking offense.    Discerning no reversible error, we affirm without

prejudice to raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel in a timely

motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.850. See Steiger v. State, 328 So. 3d 926, 929 (Fla. 2021) (holding

“unpreserved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be raised or

result in reversal on direct appeal” absent a showing of fundamental error);

see also Britton v. State, 414 So. 2d 638, 639 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“[T]he

order of presentation of evidence and witnesses is largely a function of the

trial court’s discretion; this discretion is broad enough to allow the state to

introduce, after the defendant’s case, evidence not strictly in rebuttal, so long

as the evidence was admissible in the main case.”); Lewis v. State, 711 So.

2d 205, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (concluding prosecutor’s comments during

closing arguments that bolstered victim testimony and attacked defense

counsel were harmless error given overwhelming evidence of defendant’s

guilt).

          Affirmed.

                                       2