State v. Arner

538 So. 2d 528, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 443, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 714, 1989 WL 11287
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 15, 1989·No. No. 88-1093·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. We believe that the trial court acted within its discretion in granting a new trial to appellee because of the alleged incompetency of his counsel. On the record before us we cannot say that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard or that its findings of fact were without evidentiary support.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. GLICKSTEIN, J., dissents with opinion.

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

State v. Arner, 538 So. 2d 528, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 443, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 714, 1989 WL 11287 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

538 So. 2d 528 (State v. Arner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Dawkins
863 P.2d 124 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1993)
Rose v. State
591 So. 2d 195 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)