Burgess v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burgess v. State

269 So. 2d 773

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 7, 1972·No. No. 71-847·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to clearly appear. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the issue of competency of counsel by motion to vacate under Rule 3.850, F.R.C.P., 33 F.S.A. Geiger v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 449.

Affirmed.

OWEN and MAGER, JJ., and MORROW, RUSSELL O., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to clearly appear. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed, without prejudice to appellant’s right to raise the issue of competency of counsel by motion to vacate under Rule 3.850, F.R.C.P., 33 F.S.A. Geiger v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 449.

Affirmed.

OWEN and MAGER, JJ., and MORROW, RUSSELL O., Associate Judge, concur.

Burgess v. State, 269 So. 2d 773 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

269 So. 2d 773 (Burgess v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related