Amell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Amell v. State

344 So. 2d 944

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 19, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1294

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 344 So. 2d 944 (Amell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amell v. State, 344 So. 2d 944 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is appealing from the trial court’s order denying him relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery. His conviction was appealed and affirmed. Amell v. State, 319 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). A motion for relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 was filed in the trial court and denied.

Appellant contends in this appeal that the trial court erred in denying the motion for such relief. We find the contention to be without merit.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs, and have concluded that appellant has not presented any grounds which would entitle him to the relief sought. Suarez v. State, 220 So.2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Peterson v. State, 237 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Clements v. State, 320 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is appealing from the trial court’s order denying him relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery. His conviction was appealed and affirmed. Amell v. State, 319 So.2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). A motion for relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 was filed in the trial court and denied.

Appellant contends in this appeal that the trial court erred in denying the motion for such relief. We find the contention to be without merit.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and considered the briefs, and have concluded that appellant has not presented any grounds which would entitle him to the relief sought. Suarez v. State, 220 So.2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Peterson v. State, 237 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Clements v. State, 320 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Therefore, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 So. 2d 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amell-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack