Duncan v. State

161 So. 2d 718
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 17, 1964
Docket63-709
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 161 So. 2d 718 (Duncan 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
Duncan v. State, 161 So. 2d 718 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

161 So.2d 718 (1964)

John R. DUNCAN, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 63-709.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 17, 1964.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and W. Eugene Neill, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

James W. Kynes, Jr., Atty. Gen. and Victor V. Andreevsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, seeking post-conviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix alleged that he, "was seized and searched illegally without a warrant * * *" and that, "property thus illegally obtained was produced in evidence against your petitioner, legal ownership of said property having never been ascertained and was a determining factor in your petitioner's conviction."

The trial judge found that any errors complained of in the petition were such errors as should have been called to the attention of the trial court and asserted by appeal. He further found that none of the errors complained of amounted to violations of due process of law and none of them were of the character that would support a collateral attack on the judgments of conviction.

*719 It should be noted that the record reveals that the petitioner was represented by counsel of his choice at the trial upon the criminal charge of which he was found guilty.

Affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Donovan v. United States, 205 F.2d 557 (10th Cir.1953); United States v. Scales, 249 F.2d 368 (7th Cir.1957).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Joseph v. State
447 So. 2d 243 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Carl Eugene Bowman v. Louie L. Wainwright
460 F.2d 1298 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
Spencer v. State
259 So. 2d 512 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1972)
Kish v. State
202 So. 2d 820 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Selmon v. State
195 So. 2d 249 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1967)
Dozier v. State
192 So. 2d 506 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Grayson v. State
191 So. 2d 587 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Hill v. State
188 So. 2d 14 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Chayter v. State
176 So. 2d 382 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)
Marti v. State
163 So. 2d 506 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 So. 2d 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duncan-v-state-fladistctapp-1964.