Roulhac v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Roulhac v. State

746 So. 2d 1207, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16887, 1999 WL 1188807

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 16, 1999

DocketNo. 99-2137

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 746 So. 2d 1207 (Roulhac 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

Roulhac v. State, 746 So. 2d 1207, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16887, 1999 WL 1188807 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although the trial court incorrectly found that appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel should have been raised on direct appeal, we affirm the denial of appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion because she failed to allege the prejudicial effect of counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509, n. 13 (Fla.1999); Daniels v. State, 701 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Robinson v. State, 393 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that, if a trial court’s order can be upheld under any theory revealed by the appellate record, affir-mance is proper even if the order was entered for a different or erroneous reason).

BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although the trial court incorrectly found that appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel should have been raised on direct appeal, we affirm the denial of appellant’s Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion because she failed to allege the prejudicial effect of counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. See Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509, n. 13 (Fla.1999); Daniels v. State, 701 So.2d 1222, 1223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see also Robinson v. State, 393 So.2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that, if a trial court’s order can be upheld under any theory revealed by the appellate record, affir-mance is proper even if the order was entered for a different or erroneous reason).

BOOTH, MINER and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

746 So. 2d 1207, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16887, 1999 WL 1188807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roulhac-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack