WARD v. STATE, 103 So.3d 273 (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals of Florida
Number: inflco20121226183
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 26, 2012
Summary: PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579 , 583 (Fla.2004) ("Under the circumstances of this case, a defendant would be required to allege what testimony defense counsel could have elicited from witnesses and how defense counsel's failure to call, interview, or present the witnesses who would have so testified prejudiced the case.").
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); see also Nelson v. State, 875 So.2d 579, 583 (Fla.2004) ("Under the circumstances of this case, a defendant would be required to allege what testimony defense counsel could have elicited from witnesses and how defense counsel's failure to call, interview, or present the witnesses who would have so testified prejudiced the case.").
Source: Leagle
