BALLESTER V. STATE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 JOHN BALLESTER, Appellant, vs. ** ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ** ** CASE NO. 3D02-1588 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 94-31535 Opinion filed April 14, 2004. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. John Ballester, in proper person. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee. Before COPE, LEVY and GREEN, JJ. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal of an order denying the motion of defendantappellant Ballester for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The proceeding below was an evidentiary hearing on remand from Ballester v. State, 781 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The trial court found that the defendant had shown good ground for relief from the time bar of Rule 3.850. 696 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). See Demps v. State, The trial court denied the motion as being impermissibly successive and, alternatively, on the merits. For simplicity we assume (without deciding) that there was no successiveness bar. On the merits, the trial court rejected the defendant s claim that his trial counsel had been ineffective with respect to the issue of voluntary intoxication. We affirm because this ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Machin v. State, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D467b (Fla. 3d DCA Feb. 25, 2004). Further, the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise the defendant of the potential consequences of future recidivism was correctly rejected on authority of Major v. State, 814 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2002). Affirmed. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.