Hammett v. State
Hammett v. State
804 So. 2d 522; 2001 WL 1657206
(Southern Reporter, Second Series)
Hammett v. State
Opinion
Allen A. HAMMETT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
*523 Kurt Erlenbach, Titusville, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.
GRIFFIN, J.
Appellant, Allen A. Hammett, appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief based on a claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. We affirm for two reasons: first, ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel is not a cognizable claim. Waterhouse v. State, 792 So.2d 1176, 1193 (Fla. 2001); State v. Riechmann, 777 So.2d 342, 364 n. 22 (Fla. 2000). Second, there is no colorable merit to the claim.
AFFIRMED.
SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.