Giamo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Giamo v. State

275 So. 2d 606, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7113

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 10, 1973

DocketNos. 72-1142, 72-1392

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 So. 2d 606 (Giamo 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

Giamo v. State, 275 So. 2d 606, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7113 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These appeals brought by Tony Giamo are consolidated for all appellate purposes. The appeals are from orders of the trial court denying defendant’s motion for post-judgment relief made pursuant to Rule 3.-850, CrPR, 33 F.S.A. The second order of the trial court, which was issued during the time that jurisdiction was relinquished by this court to the trial court, sets forth the basis of the trial court’s ruling.

Appellant was found guilty of bribery and sentenced to the state prison. The judgment and sentence were upheld upon appeal. See Giamo v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 116, cert. denied, Fla.1971, 251 So.2d 878. Appellant’s petition pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR, attempted to raise a claim that since he was convicted as an aider and abettor, and his principal had been found not guilty, he was therefore entitled to discharge. See Ex parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 So. 65 (1889). After examining the briefs and hearing oral argument, we affirm the orders entered upon two grounds. First, the matters alleged are not properly the subject of a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR. See Ramos v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 728. Second, the record conclusively refutes appellant’s contention that he was convicted as an aider and abettor.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These appeals brought by Tony Giamo are consolidated for all appellate purposes. The appeals are from orders of the trial court denying defendant’s motion for post-judgment relief made pursuant to Rule 3.-850, CrPR, 33 F.S.A. The second order of the trial court, which was issued during the time that jurisdiction was relinquished by this court to the trial court, sets forth the basis of the trial court’s ruling.

Appellant was found guilty of bribery and sentenced to the state prison. The judgment and sentence were upheld upon appeal. See Giamo v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 116, cert. denied, Fla.1971, 251 So.2d 878. Appellant’s petition pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR, attempted to raise a claim that since he was convicted as an aider and abettor, and his principal had been found not guilty, he was therefore entitled to discharge. See Ex parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 So. 65 (1889). After examining the briefs and hearing oral argument, we affirm the orders entered upon two grounds. First, the matters alleged are not properly the subject of a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR. See Ramos v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 728. Second, the record conclusively refutes appellant’s contention that he was convicted as an aider and abettor.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 So. 2d 606, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giamo-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack