Lee v. State

836 So. 2d 1127, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1390, 2003 WL 289429
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lee v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 789 So. 2d 1105
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 12, 2003·No. No. 3D02-1480·Published

Opinion

[1128]*1128ON MOTION FOR REHEARING GRANTED

PER CURIAM.

The opinion filed November 6, 2002, is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in its place.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the motion is timely pursuant to Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999). However, the trial court correctly denied the motion on the merits, as defendant faile'd to establish prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Moreover, the record establishes that there was a factual basis for defendant’s plea, and that defendant, through counsel, stipulated to that factual basis.

AFFIRMED.

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

Lee v. State, 836 So. 2d 1127, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 1390, 2003 WL 289429 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

836 So. 2d 1127 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Wood v. State
750 So. 2d 592 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)