Taylor v. State

823 So. 2d 263, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11418, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1787
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Taylor v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 760 So. 2d 298
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 7, 2002·No. No. 3D02-1550·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. Based upon the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned order, we affirm. See Jacobs v. State, 800 So.2d 322, 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (holding that “[Djefense counsel is not ineffective for failing to call witnesses who allegedly would have provided exculpating testimony, where there was ample evidence contradicting the testimony the witness would have given. Absent extraordinary circumstances, failure of counsel to call a witness is not a ground for collateral attack.”) (citations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

JORGENSON and LEVY, JJ., concur.

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

Taylor v. State, 823 So. 2d 263, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11418, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1787 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

823 So. 2d 263 (Taylor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jacobs v. State
800 So. 2d 322 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)