Eubanks v. State

874 So. 2d 1266, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8311, 2004 WL 1283779
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 11, 2004·No. No. 5D03-2278·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Windom v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly S191, — So.2d -, 2004 WL 1057640 (Fla. May 6, 2004) (holding that in reviewing an order on a motion for post conviction relief, the trial court’s factual findings are to be given deference); see also Foster v. State, 810 So.2d 910 (Fla.2002) (holding that it is not necessary for a trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on claims raised in a post conviction motion that are facially invalid or conclusively refuted by the record).

THOMPSON, MONACO and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

Eubanks v. State, 874 So. 2d 1266, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8311, 2004 WL 1283779 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

874 So. 2d 1266 (Eubanks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foster v. State
810 So. 2d 910 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
Windom v. State
886 So. 2d 915 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)