Legal Opinion

Serna v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided July 20, 2016No. Nos. 4D15-1035, 4D15-1036Published

1Per curiam

Affirmed. Sentencing by a successor judge was not objected-to and thus not preserved for review. See Madrigal v. State, 683 So.2d 1093, 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Davis v. State, 677 So.2d 1366, 1368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Further, defense counsel waived the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”). See Ortiz v. State, 9 So.3d 774, 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Appellant contends that , we should treat these issues as ineffective assistance of counsel on the face of the record. We decline to do so, as there could have been strategic reasons for not requesting a PSI and for opting to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Madrigal v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  2. Davis v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  3. Ortiz v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API