Radillo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Radillo v. State

797 So. 2d 23, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11445, 2001 WL 912842

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-1964

StatusPublished

This text of 797 So. 2d 23 (Radillo 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

Radillo v. State, 797 So. 2d 23, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11445, 2001 WL 912842 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Sergio Radillo, Jr., appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm.

The trial court conducted a lengthy evi-dentiary hearing on defendant-appellant Radillo’s claims that his trial counsel had been ineffective. The same trial judge had presided at the trial in which the defendant was convicted.

[24]*24In a thorough order, the court concluded that the defendant had failed to establish his trial counsel had been ineffective. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The trial court’s order is supported by competent substantial evidence, and accordingly we affirm. Porter v. State, 788 So.2d 917 (Fla.2001). We likewise find no error in the scope of the evidentiary hearing that was ordered.

The defendant also contends that the trial court should have considered polygraph evidence. We reject that argument on authority of Shannon v. State, 753 So.2d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

Affirmed.

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