WILLIAM ANDREW BAILEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
WILLIAM ANDREW BAILEY, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
627 So. 2d 57
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1993)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence in all respects, with the exception of a clerical error in the judgment. On remand, the trial court shall correct the judgment to reflect the jury verdict and the trial court’s oral pronouncement that the conviction on count II was for misdemeanor petit theft rather than grand theft.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and ALTENBERND; JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cabrera v. State, 766 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…al decisions by counsel made after a thorough investigation are “virtually unchallengeable.” Downs, 453 So. 2d at 1108. Nevertheless, “patently unreasonable” decisions, although characterized as tactical, are not immune. See [*1134] Roesch v. State, 627 So. 2d 57, 58 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Although the evidence was conflicting, we accept the trial court’s factual determination that the defense attorney conducted an investigation of the entrapment defense. We reject, however, the legal conclusion that the…
-
Light v. State, 796 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ic or tactical decisions by counsel made after a thorough investigation are “virtually unchallengeable.” Downs, 453 So. 2d at 1108. Nevertheless, “patently unreasonable” decisions, although characterized as tactical, are not immune. Roesch v. State, 627 So. 2d 57, 58 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). See also Cabrera, 766 So. 2d at 1133-34. We cannot agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Mr. Light’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to make any efforts to locate potential witnesses.5 Counsel has a…
-
Jovan Lamb v. State, 124 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…counsel are subject to great deference in postconviction review, “‘patently unreasonable’ decisions, although characterized as tactical, are not immune.” Cabrera v. State, 766 So. 2d 1131, 1133-34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (quoting in part Roesch v. State, 627 So. 2d 57, 58 n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). Trial counsel’s explanation for failing to file the motion reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for new trial. We conclude that counsel’s decis…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence