Legal Opinion

Smith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 2, 1993No. 91-2431Published

1Per curiam

Appellant’s conviction is affirmed because it appears that appellant was aware of the risks involved in rejecting the plea offer prior to the prosecutor withdrawing that offer. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978). Appellant’s habitual violent felony offender sentence is affirmed under the authority of Ross v. State, 601 So.2d 1190 (Fla.1992); Tillman v. State, 609 So.2d 1295 (Fla.1992); Becker v. State, 612 So.2d 559 (Fla.1992); Reeves v. State, 612 So.2d 560 (Fla.1992).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bordenkircher v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Tillman v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
  3. Ross v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
  4. Reeves v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992
  5. Becker v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1992