Bullard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bullard v. State

306 So. 2d 557, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14737

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 1975

DocketNo. W-80

StatusPublished

This text of 306 So. 2d 557 (Bullard 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

Bullard v. State, 306 So. 2d 557, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14737 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the thorough and well reasoned order of the trial judge giving rise to this appeal together [558]*558with the rest of the record on appeal and the briefs of appellant and the State. We do not find it here necessary to determine whether writs of coram nobis have been abolished in criminal actions. (See Rule 1.540(b) RCP; Rule 3.610 RCrP, and Rule 3.850 RCrP) In any event, it is apparent that the procedure employed sub judice was consistent with all constitutional requirements, including- due process and that the action of the trial judge complained of did not constitute an abuse of his discretion.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, the order appealed is

Affirmed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., JOHNSON, J., and STEWART, LEON F., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully considered the thorough and well reasoned order of the trial judge giving rise to this appeal together [558]*558with the rest of the record on appeal and the briefs of appellant and the State. We do not find it here necessary to determine whether writs of coram nobis have been abolished in criminal actions. (See Rule 1.540(b) RCP; Rule 3.610 RCrP, and Rule 3.850 RCrP) In any event, it is apparent that the procedure employed sub judice was consistent with all constitutional requirements, including- due process and that the action of the trial judge complained of did not constitute an abuse of his discretion.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, the order appealed is

Affirmed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., JOHNSON, J., and STEWART, LEON F., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 So. 2d 557, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullard-v-state-fladistctapp-1975.