Jomolla v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jomolla v. State

19 So. 3d 415, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13933, 2009 WL 2949306

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 16, 2009

DocketNo. 3D09-1442

StatusPublished

This text of 19 So. 3d 415 (Jomolla 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

Jomolla v. State, 19 So. 3d 415, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13933, 2009 WL 2949306 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Reyes v. State, 920 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that where results would not have been different but for counsel’s error, the defendant has not proven prejudice as required under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)); see also Jomolla v. State, 990 So.2d 1234, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (finding that the State did not argue the erroneous theory or rely upon it in the prosecution’s case).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Reyes v. State, 920 So.2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that where results would not have been different but for counsel’s error, the defendant has not proven prejudice as required under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)); see also Jomolla v. State, 990 So.2d 1234, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (finding that the State did not argue the erroneous theory or rely upon it in the prosecution’s case).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 So. 3d 415, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 13933, 2009 WL 2949306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jomolla-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack