Blanco v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blanco v. State

466 So. 2d 1152, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1092, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13156

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 27, 1985·No. No. 84-949·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant's convictions and sentences, finding no fundamental or harmful error in the various issues raised on appeal. Cf. Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981). We also specifically reject appellant’s contentions of incompetency of counsel, finding such claims patently invalid on the record before us. See State v. Eicher, 431 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Notwithstanding our affirmance of the convictions and sentences, we remand with directions that the provisions of the trial court’s order retaining jurisdiction over the appellant’s sentences be stricken.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant's convictions and sentences, finding no fundamental or harmful error in the various issues raised on appeal. Cf. Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956 (Fla.1981). We also specifically reject appellant’s contentions of incompetency of counsel, finding such claims patently invalid on the record before us. See State v. Eicher, 431 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

Notwithstanding our affirmance of the convictions and sentences, we remand with directions that the provisions of the trial court’s order retaining jurisdiction over the appellant’s sentences be stricken.

ANSTEAD, C.J., and HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.

Blanco v. State, 466 So. 2d 1152, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1092, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13156 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

466 So. 2d 1152 (Blanco v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related