Brayton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brayton v. State

605 So. 2d 138, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9317, 1992 WL 206412

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 28, 1992·No. No. 92-02579·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. All of appellant’s allegations are either facially insufficient or conclusively refuted by the portions of the record that the trial court attached to its order of denial. With respect to appellant’s allegation challenging the constitutionality of the habitual offender statute as violative of the single subject rule, see McCall v. State, 583 So.2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), rev. granted, 593 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1992).

LEHAN, C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. All of appellant’s allegations are either facially insufficient or conclusively refuted by the portions of the record that the trial court attached to its order of denial. With respect to appellant’s allegation challenging the constitutionality of the habitual offender statute as violative of the single subject rule, see McCall v. State, 583 So.2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), rev. granted, 593 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1992).

LEHAN, C.J., and PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Brayton v. State, 605 So. 2d 138, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9317, 1992 WL 206412 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

605 So. 2d 138 (Brayton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related