Gibbar v. State

859 So. 2d 1220, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16948, 2003 WL 22513788
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 7, 2003
DocketNo. 5D02-3203
StatusPublished

This text of 859 So. 2d 1220 (Gibbar 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
Gibbar v. State, 859 So. 2d 1220, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16948, 2003 WL 22513788 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Blanco v. State, 702 So.2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (holding that a trial court’s ruling on a 3.850 motion will not be disturbed if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence); see also Dudek v. State, 783 So.2d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (holding that it was contemplated at the time of the plea that appellant would be sentenced to 85 months in prison and reducing his sentence to conform to the [1221]*12211994 guidelines was all that appellant was entitled to at his Heggs resentencing).

THOMPSON, PLEUS and TORPY, JJ„ concur.

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

Related

Blanco v. State
702 So. 2d 1250 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
Dudek v. State
783 So. 2d 331 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
859 So. 2d 1220, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16948, 2003 WL 22513788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbar-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.