him. See Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So.2d 637, 643 (Fla.2000) (“If a legal issue ‘would in all probability have been found to be without merit’ had counsel raised the issue on direct appeal, the failure of appellate counsel to raise the meritless issue will not render appellate counsel’s performance ineffective.” (quoting Williamson v. Dugger, 651 So.2d 84, 86 (Fla.1994))). See also Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067, 1068 (Fla.2009) (receding from precedent that applied the “primary evil” test to interpret section 775.021(4)(b)(2), Florida Statutes (2008), and holding that the statute prohibits separate punishments for crimes arising from the same criminal transaction only when a criminal statute defines an offense with multiple degrees); State v. Zanger, 572 So.2d 1379, 1380 (Fla.1991) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Harrison’s petition and its attachments
holding defendant had requisite contacts under section 481932 florida statutes where it solicited consulting and other services from a florida corporation in which a substantial amount of the services sought by defendant were performed in florida holding housing statutes create no rights in tenants for purposes of section 1983 holding that double jeopardy does not prohibit dual convictions for possession and sale of the same quantum cocaine holding that defendants bank account and open line of credit in florida utilized to transfer money in international commerce was insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section 481932 florida statutes where defendant operated its business in honduras had no employees or agents in florida and did not advertise or solicit business in florida holding that section 812025 florida statutes 1983 does not prohibit convictions for both robbery and dealing in stolen property