green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LUMSDON v. State
We find no merit in this argument and affirm on the authority of Bonilla v. State, 23 So.3d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), Valdes-Pino v. State, 23 So.3d 871, 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), Nieves v. State, 22 So.3d 691, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) and Zeigler v. State, 18 So.3d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Solano v. State
(2×)
Valdes-Pino v. State, 23 So.3d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); see also Bonilla v. State, 23 So.3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Leggett v. State
(2×)
See also Bonilla v. State, 23 So.3d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (certifying direct conflict with Montgomery).
Rodrigo BONILLA, Petitioner,
v.
the STATE of Florida, Respondent
v.
the STATE of Florida, Respondent
3D09-3209.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec 23, 2009.
Rodrigo Bonilla, in proper person., Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for respondent.
Gersten, Suarez, and Salter.
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
We deny the defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. However, to preserve the defendant’s rights, we certify direct conflict with Montgomery v. State, - So.3d -, 2009 WL 350624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), which is currently pending review before the Florida Supreme Court. State v. Montgomery, 11 So.3d 943 (Fla.2009).
Habeas corpus denied; conflict certified.