Duke v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Duke v. State

162 So. 2d 549, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4653

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1964

DocketNo. 4197

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 So. 2d 549 (Duke 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

Duke v. State, 162 So. 2d 549, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4653 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, seeking post conviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S. A. ch. 924 Appendix, failed to allege that he was insolvent and unable to employ counsel at the time he entered his plea. The motion therefore was legally insufficient. See Dias'v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 766; Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 566; Auflick v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 767, habeas corpus denied, Fla.1964, 159 So.2d 646.

We affirm the order denying the relief sought without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a subsequent motion in the trial court in accordance with the principle announced in Turner v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 161 So.2d 11.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.

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