Carpenter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carpenter v. State

176 So. 2d 610, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4326

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 22, 1965

DocketNo. 65-31

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 So. 2d 610 (Carpenter 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

Carpenter v. State, 176 So. 2d 610, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4326 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse order on his petition, filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

Appellant was originally indicted and arraigned on a charge of rape. The first plea was not guilty. ' This was subsequently changed to a guilty plea, while represented by counsel. This is the third successive petition for post conviction relief that the appellant has filed. The denial of the second of these was reviewed by this court and affirmed in Carpenter v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 99. The third petition, the order which is here under review, contains substantially the same allegations as those contained in the two previous petitions. We find no error in the trial judge’s denial of this last petition and, therefore, we affirm his action. See: Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 616; Rankin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 324.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, defendant in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse order on his petition, filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

Appellant was originally indicted and arraigned on a charge of rape. The first plea was not guilty. ' This was subsequently changed to a guilty plea, while represented by counsel. This is the third successive petition for post conviction relief that the appellant has filed. The denial of the second of these was reviewed by this court and affirmed in Carpenter v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 99. The third petition, the order which is here under review, contains substantially the same allegations as those contained in the two previous petitions. We find no error in the trial judge’s denial of this last petition and, therefore, we affirm his action. See: Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 616; Rankin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 324.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 So. 2d 610, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-state-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack