Gardner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gardner v. State

214 So. 2d 786

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1968

DocketNo. 68-124

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 214 So. 2d 786 (Gardner 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

Gardner v. State, 214 So. 2d 786 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from a denial of his Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence by the trial court. Appellant urges as his point on appeal that he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel by the trial court’s appointment of a single attorney to jointly represent the appellant and a co-defendant.

The record shows that appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of robbery and there was no trial. In a recent opinion Williams v. State of Florida, 214 So.2d 29, filed September 4, 1967, we affirmed a decision of the lower court based on a similar set of facts. Based upon that authority, we therefore affirm the decision of the trial court in this case.

Affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and ALLEN and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals from a denial of his Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence by the trial court. Appellant urges as his point on appeal that he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel by the trial court’s appointment of a single attorney to jointly represent the appellant and a co-defendant.

The record shows that appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of robbery and there was no trial. In a recent opinion Williams v. State of Florida, 214 So.2d 29, filed September 4, 1967, we affirmed a decision of the lower court based on a similar set of facts. Based upon that authority, we therefore affirm the decision of the trial court in this case.

Affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and ALLEN and HOB-SON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 So. 2d 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gardner-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack