History
  • No items yet
midpage
Steele v. State
634 So. 2d 827
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1994
Check Treatment
PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. On the issue of counsel’s alleged “promise” as to appellant’s eligibility for gain time, the record reflects appellant’s acknowledgment at his plea hearing that no “promises,” other than those referred to at the plea hearing, had been made to him by anyone. This is sufficient to support a denial of his claim. See Zaetler v. State, 627 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).

ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Steele v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Apr 20, 1994
Citation: 634 So. 2d 827
Docket Number: No. 93-3812
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.