Friedlander v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Friedlander v. State

577 So. 2d 673, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2938, 1991 WL 44958

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 1991

DocketNo. 88-1014

StatusPublished

This text of 577 So. 2d 673 (Friedlander 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

Friedlander v. State, 577 So. 2d 673, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2938, 1991 WL 44958 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant waived his right to appeal upon entering his plea to thirteen counts charging a scheme to defraud. There was no reservation of a right to appeal. We also note that appellant has never sought to withdraw his plea and permit the state to reinstate the one hundred charges dropped contemporaneously with his entering the plea. Additionally, appellant’s claims of lack of jurisdiction are without merit. Cf. Hoover v. State, 530 So.2d 308 (Fla.1988); Maralit v. State, 468 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Livolsi v. State, 451 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In any event, our examination of the issues raised by appellant reflects that he was convicted of a crime which is distinct from the misdemeanor appellant asserts was applicable under the regulatory statute that he contends governed his activities.

DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Appellant waived his right to appeal upon entering his plea to thirteen counts charging a scheme to defraud. There was no reservation of a right to appeal. We also note that appellant has never sought to withdraw his plea and permit the state to reinstate the one hundred charges dropped contemporaneously with his entering the plea. Additionally, appellant’s claims of lack of jurisdiction are without merit. Cf. Hoover v. State, 530 So.2d 308 (Fla.1988); Maralit v. State, 468 So.2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Livolsi v. State, 451 So.2d 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In any event, our examination of the issues raised by appellant reflects that he was convicted of a crime which is distinct from the misdemeanor appellant asserts was applicable under the regulatory statute that he contends governed his activities.

DELL, STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 So. 2d 673, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2938, 1991 WL 44958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedlander-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack