Burgess v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burgess v. State

269 So. 2d 773

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 7, 1972

DocketNo. 71-847

StatusPublished

This text of 269 So. 2d 773 (Burgess 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 So. 2d 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack