BISHOP v. STATE (2019)

Levy Bishop appeals orders revoking his probation in two separate cases. We consolidate the appeals, and we affirm.

Bishop raises a single issue on appeal. He contends that there was ineffective assistance of counsel obvious on the face of the record. Although ineffective-assistance claims are typically cognizable only in postconviction proceedings, in rare instances, appellants can raise ineffective assistance on direct appeal. Sims v. State, 260 So.3d 509, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). But to do so, an appellant must show, among other things, “indisputable prejudice.” Id. (quoting Morales v. State, 170 So.3d 63, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ). Here, Bishop argues his counsel was ineffective for not adequately pursuing the earlier-filed motion to suppress. But rather than demonstrate indisputable prejudice, Bishop has only argued that had the court granted the motion, Bishop would have prevailed—and that had the court not granted the motion, the issue would have at least been preserved for appellate review. This falls well short of what is necessary to meet the narrow exception to the general rule, so Bishop's ineffective-assistance claims may only be raised in a postconviction proceeding.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.