Mir v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mir v. State

802 So. 2d 1222, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 202, 2002 WL 54642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-1953

StatusPublished

This text of 802 So. 2d 1222 (Mir 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

Mir v. State, 802 So. 2d 1222, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 202, 2002 WL 54642 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Confession of Error

PER CURIAM.

Vladimir Mir appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. The State concedes that defendant-appellant Mir is within the window period for Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), and is entitled to be resentenced. Accordingly we reverse the order now under review and remand for resentencing.

We conclude that defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are time-barred. We affirm the trial court’s order insofar as it denied relief on the claim of ineffective assistance.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing.

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