Diaz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Diaz v. State

354 So. 2d 113

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 1978

DocketNo. 77-717

StatusPublished

This text of 354 So. 2d 113 (Diaz 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

Diaz v. State, 354 So. 2d 113 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Jorge V. Diaz, was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder and of robbery in October of 1974. He was represented at trial by privately employed counsel. An appeal from the judgment and sentence was prosecuted. See 323 So.2d 289 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).

On February 16, 1977, Diaz filed a pro se motion to vacate the judgment and sentence. The main thrust of this motion appears to be that his privately employed counsel was so incompetent that the defendant did not receive a fair trial. The trial judge denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. This appeal is from that order.

The defendant argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We do not agree. The motion did not present grounds for relief. See the rule in Cappetta v. Wainwright, 203 So.2d 609 (Fla.1967); Brown v. State, 223 So.2d 337 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); and Ford v. State, 210 So.2d 33 (Fla.2d DCA 1968).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, Jorge V. Diaz, was found guilty by a jury of first degree murder and of robbery in October of 1974. He was represented at trial by privately employed counsel. An appeal from the judgment and sentence was prosecuted. See 323 So.2d 289 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).

On February 16, 1977, Diaz filed a pro se motion to vacate the judgment and sentence. The main thrust of this motion appears to be that his privately employed counsel was so incompetent that the defendant did not receive a fair trial. The trial judge denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. This appeal is from that order.

The defendant argues that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. We do not agree. The motion did not present grounds for relief. See the rule in Cappetta v. Wainwright, 203 So.2d 609 (Fla.1967); Brown v. State, 223 So.2d 337 (Fla.3d DCA 1969); and Ford v. State, 210 So.2d 33 (Fla.2d DCA 1968).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 So. 2d 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diaz-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack