Barboza v. Crosby

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barboza v. Crosby

909 So. 2d 928, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12030, 2005 WL 1812993

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 2005

DocketNo. 3D05-1648

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 909 So. 2d 928 (Barboza v. Crosby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barboza v. Crosby, 909 So. 2d 928, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12030, 2005 WL 1812993 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Barboza appeals the summary denial of a 3.850 motion for post conviction [929]*929relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Barboza alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of his purported voluntary intoxication during his prosecution for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and burglary with an assault. We affirm because the record demonstrates that Barboza made a statement in which he admitted to law enforcement that he entered the victim’s house with the intent to steal from him. This admission, introduced into evidence without objection at Barboza’s trial, demonstrates that he had the specific intent to commit these two offenses. Thus, even if Barboza had advanced a voluntary intoxication defense, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. See Locklear v. State, 847 So.2d 543, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Michael Barboza appeals the summary denial of a 3.850 motion for post conviction [929]*929relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Barboza alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of his purported voluntary intoxication during his prosecution for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and burglary with an assault. We affirm because the record demonstrates that Barboza made a statement in which he admitted to law enforcement that he entered the victim’s house with the intent to steal from him. This admission, introduced into evidence without objection at Barboza’s trial, demonstrates that he had the specific intent to commit these two offenses. Thus, even if Barboza had advanced a voluntary intoxication defense, there is no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different. See Locklear v. State, 847 So.2d 543, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 So. 2d 928, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12030, 2005 WL 1812993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barboza-v-crosby-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack