State v. Baker

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Baker

519 So. 2d 1127, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 400, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 498, 1988 WL 8374

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 11, 1988

DocketNo. 86-2028

StatusPublished

This text of 519 So. 2d 1127 (State v. Baker) 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

State v. Baker, 519 So. 2d 1127, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 400, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 498, 1988 WL 8374 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from an order setting aside Baker’s conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm, following a hearing on his motions for post-conviction relief. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. The trial court found that Baker’s trial counsel was sufficiently inept as to merit a new trial pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We disagree.

After carefully reviewing the record, we do not think the nineteen grounds asserted by Baker as demonstrating his counsel's inadequate representation constitute poor professional performance, or if a few grounds have facial merit, that any prejudice to Baker was demonstrated which affected the outcome of the trial. We also conclude no fundamental error occurred with regard to the trial court’s imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to section 775.087(2), Fla.Stat. (1985). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and reinstate the sentence and judgment of conviction.

SHARP, C.J., and COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals from an order setting aside Baker’s conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm, following a hearing on his motions for post-conviction relief. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. The trial court found that Baker’s trial counsel was sufficiently inept as to merit a new trial pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We disagree.

After carefully reviewing the record, we do not think the nineteen grounds asserted by Baker as demonstrating his counsel's inadequate representation constitute poor professional performance, or if a few grounds have facial merit, that any prejudice to Baker was demonstrated which affected the outcome of the trial. We also conclude no fundamental error occurred with regard to the trial court’s imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to section 775.087(2), Fla.Stat. (1985). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order and reinstate the sentence and judgment of conviction.

SHARP, C.J., and COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 So. 2d 1127, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 400, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 498, 1988 WL 8374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baker-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack