Harper v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harper v. State

988 So. 2d 1212, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13423, 2008 WL 3852099

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketNo. 1D08-1101

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 988 So. 2d 1212 (Harper 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

Harper v. State, 988 So. 2d 1212, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13423, 2008 WL 3852099 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Lane v. State, 981 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Apprendi does not apply in this case because the scoring of victim injury points ... did not result in a sentence above the prescribed statutory maximum.”); see also Card v. State, 497 So.2d 1169, 1177 (Fla.1986) (“Counsel cannot be labeled ineffective for failing to raise issues which have no merit.”).

ALLEN, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Lane v. State, 981 So.2d 596, 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Apprendi does not apply in this case because the scoring of victim injury points ... did not result in a sentence above the prescribed statutory maximum.”); see also Card v. State, 497 So.2d 1169, 1177 (Fla.1986) (“Counsel cannot be labeled ineffective for failing to raise issues which have no merit.”).

ALLEN, DAVIS, and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

988 So. 2d 1212, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 13423, 2008 WL 3852099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack