Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2011

Burks v. State

Burks v. State
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided March 30, 2011 · Ramirez, Schwartz, Shepherd
57 So. 3d 972; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4348; 2011 WL 1135381 (Southern Reporter, Third Series)

Burks v. State

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Brandon Burks argues in this appeal that defense counsel’s failure to object and move for a mistrial when the prosecutor asked the arresting officer whether the defendant made any statements when he had not, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel cognizable on direct appeal. For a claim to be cognizable on direct appeal, the ineffectiveness must be apparent on the face of the record, such that “it would be a waste of judicial resources to require the trial court to address the issue.” Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So.2d 1377, 1384 (Fla. 1987); see also Eure v. State, 764 So.2d 798, 801 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We do not agree that the one question and answer, although clearly improper, rises to that level, where it was never repeated nor referred to in the State’s closing argument.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.