Adams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 7, 1996

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1996-02-07

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1998

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“if defense counsel had taken the additional steps identified in appellant's motion, there [was a] reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lanier v. State

Relies on Strickland v. Washington

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-02-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Anthony Adams appeals an order denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We conclude that the second element of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), has not been satisfied, namely, even if defense counsel had taken the additional steps identified in appellant’s motion, there is no reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have *285been different. See 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068.

¶2Affirmed.