Sanchez v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ANDREW SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D00-1314 ) Opinion filed November 28, 2001. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Robert J. Simms, Judge. James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah F. Hogge, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. DAVIS, Judge. Andrew Sanchez challenges the circuit court's denial after a hearing of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion that alleged prosecutorial misconduct for comments made during the State's closing argument. He argues that new case law entitles him to relief. However, because the case law cited by Sanchez does not reflect a new statement of the law, we affirm the trial court's denial of his rule 3.850 motion. Furthermore, any ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim that Sanchez might have raised in a 3.850 motion under Nahm v. State, 760 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), is now time-barred, unless he can demonstrate his entitlement to a belated 3.850 motion pursuant to Medrano v. State, 748 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1999). Affirmed. BLUE, C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.