Denson v. State

230 So. 2d 479, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 7010
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 23, 1970
DocketNo. 69-9
StatusPublished

This text of 230 So. 2d 479 (Denson 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
Denson v. State, 230 So. 2d 479, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 7010 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate filed pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A.

The allegation that the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony while legally sufficient as a ground for relief, Rayburn v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 212, is conclusively refuted by the transcript of the trial proceedings as contained in the record on appeal.

The allegation that court appointed counsel refused to call a star witness is legally insufficient to sustain a motion to vacate. Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 224.

The allegation that appellant was deprived of a direct appeal through failure of court appointed counsel to file an appeal is not grounds for the relief sought under CrPR 1.850. Barnett v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 30; Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 96; Mobley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 90; Nelson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 506. If appellant’s right to direct appeal is shown to have been frustrated through a state functionary, he may obtain delayed appellate review by writ of habeas corpus in the district court of appeal. Powe v. State, Fla.1968, 216 So.2d 446; Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 577; State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith, Fla.1964, 160 So.2d 518; Jackson v. State, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 227 So.2d 354, opinion filed October 8, 1969.

The order denying appellant’s motion to vacate is affirmed, without prejudice to the right of appellant to seek delayed appellate review by writ of habeas corpus in this court upon sufficient showing of his entitlement to such.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Powe v. State
216 So. 2d 446 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1968)
Coleman v. State
215 So. 2d 96 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Mobley v. State
215 So. 2d 90 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Jackson v. State
227 So. 2d 354 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Simpson v. State
164 So. 2d 224 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)
Nelson v. State
208 So. 2d 506 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Hollingshead v. Wainwright
194 So. 2d 577 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1967)
State Ex Rel. Ervin v. Smith
160 So. 2d 518 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1964)
Barnett v. State
222 So. 2d 30 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Rayburn v. State
203 So. 2d 212 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 So. 2d 479, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 7010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denson-v-state-fladistctapp-1970.