Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matthew COLLITO, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Matthew Collito petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(d), alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
In the underlying proceedings, Collito was charged with a version of sexual battery that involved a victim under the age of twelve and a defendant under the age of eighteen. He subsequently entered into a plea agreement, but the judgment reflected a version of sexual battery involving a defendant over the age of eighteen. It is undisputed that Collito was under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense. In his direct appeal, Collito's appellate counsel filed an Anders 1 brief, which did not address the discrepancy in the judgment, and this Court per curiam affirmed. See Collito v. State, 291 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).
Despite the judgment reflecting an incorrect version of sexual battery, we deny Collito's petition. Because he entered a plea, the issues cognizable in his direct appeal were limited. § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat. (2019); Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i)–(ii).2 Having failed to meet any of the delineated grounds to appeal from his plea, Collito cannot establish that appellate counsel was ineffective. See Valle v. Moore, 837 So. 2d 905, 908 (Fla. 2002) (noting that appellate counsel cannot be considered ineffective for failing to raise non-meritorious claims on appeal). Instead, Collito's remedy, if any, is under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, through a petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850.
Accordingly, we deny the petition without prejudice to Collito filing a timely and facially sufficient motion under rule 3.850.
PETITION DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
2. Review in plea cases is limited to: 1) issues in an express reservation; 2) subject matter jurisdiction; 3) involuntary plea, if preserved by motion to withdraw plea; 4) sentencing error preserved by timely objection or Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion; 5) violation of plea agreement, if preserved by motion to withdraw plea; or 6) “as otherwise provided by law.” § 924.06(3), Fla. Stat.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A)(i)–(ii).
PER CURIAM.
ORFINGER, COHEN and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Case No. 5D20-1766
Decided: November 20, 2020
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)