Steele v. State
634 So. 2d 827, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3820, 1994 WL 138333
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Steele v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 645 So. 2d 59 →
Opinion
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. On the issue of counsel’s alleged “promise” as to appellant’s eligibility for gain time, the record reflects appellant’s acknowledgment at his plea hearing that no “promises,” other than those referred to at the plea hearing, had been made to him by anyone. This is sufficient to support a denial of his claim. See Zaetler v. State, 627 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Steele v. State, 634 So. 2d 827, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 3820, 1994 WL 138333 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).
634 So. 2d 827 (Steele v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Zaetler v. State
627 So. 2d 1328 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)