Suarez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Suarez v. State

502 So. 2d 526, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 555, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6808

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1481

StatusPublished

This text of 502 So. 2d 526 (Suarez 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

Suarez v. State, 502 So. 2d 526, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 555, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6808 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final order under review denying the defendant Jose Fernando Suarez’ motion to vacate his judgments of conviction and sentences under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 is affirmed. We reach this result because the trial court, on this record, was privileged to find that: (a) the defendant freely and voluntarily decided not to testify at his trial upon professionally sound advice of counsel, and (b) counsel in no way coerced the defendant into accepting the advice not to testify. This being so, the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense by testifying in his own behalf was not, as urged, abridged in this case. See Cutter v. State, 460 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Moore v. State, 458 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Thomas v. State, 383 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final order under review denying the defendant Jose Fernando Suarez’ motion to vacate his judgments of conviction and sentences under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 is affirmed. We reach this result because the trial court, on this record, was privileged to find that: (a) the defendant freely and voluntarily decided not to testify at his trial upon professionally sound advice of counsel, and (b) counsel in no way coerced the defendant into accepting the advice not to testify. This being so, the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense by testifying in his own behalf was not, as urged, abridged in this case. See Cutter v. State, 460 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Moore v. State, 458 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Thomas v. State, 383 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 526, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 555, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suarez-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack