Austin v. State
74 So. 3d 1119, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17783, 2011 WL 5375019
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Austin v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 995 So. 2d 1174 →
Opinion
We affirm the denial of appellant’s post-conviction motion except as to the claim involving counsel’s failure to call witness Sullivan at trial. This claim is legally sufficient and requires an evidentiary hearing. We remand for further proceedings on this claim only. We affirm the denial of the motion in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part and Remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Austin v. State, 74 So. 3d 1119, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17783, 2011 WL 5375019 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).
74 So. 3d 1119 (Austin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gore v. State
74 So. 3d 1119 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)