Supreme Court of Florida· 12/18/2008

Smith v. State

Citations

998 So. 2d 516
2008 WL 4355404

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that, only “in the rare case, where both prongs of Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984
“[I]neffective assistance claims are not usually presented to the judge at trial, and we have repeatedly stated such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.”
“[I]neffective assistance claims are not usually presented to the judge at trial, and we have repeatedly stated such claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.”
“[The Florida Supreme Court has] repeatedly stated [ineffective assistance of trial counsel] claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.”
“We have previously rejected claims of disparate sentencing when the codefendant’s sentence resulted from his entry of a plea or prosecutorial discretion.” (citing England, 940 So.2d at 406)
“We have previously rejected claims of disparate sentencing when the codefendant’s sentence resulted from his entry of a plea or prosecutorial discretion.” (citing England, 940 So. 2d at 406)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

38 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

46 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.