Marta-Rodriguez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marta-Rodriguez v. State

811 So. 2d 819, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3728, 2002 WL 440563

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 2002

DocketNo. 2D01-514

StatusPublished

This text of 811 So. 2d 819 (Marta-Rodriguez 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

Marta-Rodriguez v. State, 811 So. 2d 819, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3728, 2002 WL 440563 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SALCINES, Judge.

Cruz Marta-Rodriguez appeals the order denying his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm.

When reviewing an order denying a motion for postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the appellate court must defer to a trial court’s factual findings which are supported by competent, substantial evidence. The legal conclusions may be reviewed de novo. Cabrera v. State, 766 So.2d 1131, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

A thorough evidentiary hearing was conducted to review Marta-Rodriguez’s lengthy motion. The trial court entered a detailed order setting forth its findings of fact and conclusion of law. We hold that the trial court’s factual findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the legal conclusion that trial counsel was not ineffective was correct.

Affirmed.

BLUE, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.

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