Sykosky v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sykosky v. State

770 So. 2d 207, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13459, 2000 WL 1526254

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 17, 2000

DocketNo. 1D00-2677

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 770 So. 2d 207 (Sykosky 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

Sykosky v. State, 770 So. 2d 207, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13459, 2000 WL 1526254 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an order summarily denying Joseph Sykosky’s motion pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Sykosky alleges ineffective assistance of counsel on two grounds. First, he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ask for limiting and jury instructions on Williams rule evidence. Second, he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for [208]*208failing to object to several instances of allegedly improper prosecutorial comment. The trial court summarily denied both claims without attaching any portion of the record conclusively refuting them. We therefore reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing or for the trial court to specify and attach to an order portions of the record conclusively refuting the claims.

JOANOS, WOLF, and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises from an order summarily denying Joseph Sykosky’s motion pursuant to rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Sykosky alleges ineffective assistance of counsel on two grounds. First, he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ask for limiting and jury instructions on Williams rule evidence. Second, he alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective for [208]*208failing to object to several instances of allegedly improper prosecutorial comment. The trial court summarily denied both claims without attaching any portion of the record conclusively refuting them. We therefore reverse and remand for an evi-dentiary hearing or for the trial court to specify and attach to an order portions of the record conclusively refuting the claims.

JOANOS, WOLF, and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

770 So. 2d 207, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 13459, 2000 WL 1526254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sykosky-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack