McGraw v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McGraw v. State

886 So. 2d 261, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15882, 2004 WL 2391086

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McGraw v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 922 So. 2d 243 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 27, 2004·No. No. 4D03-3694·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence, concluding that the issues with respect to the use of a permissive presumption and the prosecutor’s closing argument were not preserved for review. As to appellant’s claim that counsel conceded guilt to a charged crime without his consent, we affirm without prejudice to appellant raising the issue in a motion for postconviction relief.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence, concluding that the issues with respect to the use of a permissive presumption and the prosecutor’s closing argument were not preserved for review. As to appellant’s claim that counsel conceded guilt to a charged crime without his consent, we affirm without prejudice to appellant raising the issue in a motion for postconviction relief.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and MAY, JJ., concur.

McGraw v. State, 886 So. 2d 261, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15882, 2004 WL 2391086 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

886 So. 2d 261 (McGraw v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.