Ross v. State

Petitioner Arthur Ross brings this petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for counsel’s failure to challenge his resentencing by a successor judge. Ross alleges that the successor judge did not comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Proce*443dure 3.700(c)(1) in that the judge did not sufficiently familiarize himself with the facts of the case before passing sentence. Ross claims that appellate counsel should have filed a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to preserve this error.1 We deny the petition as we conclude that appellate counsel was not ineffective for…