D.D. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.D. v. State

969 So. 2d 1194, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19326, 2007 WL 4269034

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 2007

DocketNo. 5D07-1317

StatusPublished

This text of 969 So. 2d 1194 (D.D. v. State) 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

D.D. v. State, 969 So. 2d 1194, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19326, 2007 WL 4269034 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, D.D., appeals the disposition order finding her guilty of battery and placing her on probation until her nineteenth birthday. D.D. contends that it is apparent on the face of the record that D.D.’s trial counsel was ineffective under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

The crux of D.D.’s appeal goes to the failure of her trial counsel to move for a judgment of dismissal. We find no error and affirm. The trial court correctly ruled that the testimony of the mother, coupled with the admission of D.D., were sufficient to support the battery adjudication. See, e.g., Wingfield v. State, 751 So.2d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Clark v. State, 746 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); State v. Roux, 702 So.2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Malczewski v. State, 444 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Appellant, D.D., appeals the disposition order finding her guilty of battery and placing her on probation until her nineteenth birthday. D.D. contends that it is apparent on the face of the record that D.D.’s trial counsel was ineffective under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

The crux of D.D.’s appeal goes to the failure of her trial counsel to move for a judgment of dismissal. We find no error and affirm. The trial court correctly ruled that the testimony of the mother, coupled with the admission of D.D., were sufficient to support the battery adjudication. See, e.g., Wingfield v. State, 751 So.2d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Clark v. State, 746 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); State v. Roux, 702 So.2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Malczewski v. State, 444 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

AFFIRMED.

THOMPSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

969 So. 2d 1194, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19326, 2007 WL 4269034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dd-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack