Gibbar v. State
859 So. 2d 1220, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16948, 2003 WL 22513788
Opinion
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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Gibbar v. State, 859 So. 2d 1220, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16948, 2003 WL 22513788 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).
859 So. 2d 1220 (Gibbar v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)