Davis v. State

12 So. 3d 918, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9508, 2009 WL 1971838
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 10, 2009·No. 5D08-4427·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Cf Lowe v. State, 2 So.3d 21, 38 (Fla.2008) (“Because the Court found no fundamental error [on direct appeal], Lowe fails to demonstrate that counsel’s failure to object to the comments resulted in prejudice sufficient to undermine the outcome of the trial under Strickland [ 1 ].”); Chandler v. State, 848 So.2d 1031, 1046 (Fla.2003) (“Because Chandler could not show the comments were fundamental error on direct appeal, he likewise cannot show that trial counsel’s failure to object to the comments resulted in prejudice sufficient to undermine the outcome of the case under the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.”).

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
1

. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

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

Davis v. State, 12 So. 3d 918, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9508, 2009 WL 1971838 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

12 So. 3d 918 (Davis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gillen v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC
12 So. 3d 918 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)