![A.F. v. State](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![A.F. v. State](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
A.F. v. State
912 SO.2D 374, 30 FLA. L. WEEKLY D2370, 2005.FL.0005401
-
- USD 0.99
-
- USD 0.99
Descripción editorial
In this appeal from an order denying post conviction relief, we affirm the trial courts ruling that appellants trial counsel did not fail to function as counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, even though she did not move to suppress appellants statements on the grounds later identified in Roberts v. State, 874 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).