Griffith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Griffith v. State

308 So. 2d 575

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1975

DocketNo. W-126

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 So. 2d 575 (Griffith 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

Griffith v. State, 308 So. 2d 575 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs filed by able counsel. Although the evidence giving rise to entry of the judgment and sentence here appealed was in conflict those conflicts were resolved by the trier of the fact for whose judgment we may not substitute ours. We find no error of law as applied to those facts. Further, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties reveal that each point here presented has been heretofore determined by decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Florida. Nothing would be added to the jurisprudence of this State by again discussing those points here.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, the judgment and sentence appealed are

Affirmed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs filed by able counsel. Although the evidence giving rise to entry of the judgment and sentence here appealed was in conflict those conflicts were resolved by the trier of the fact for whose judgment we may not substitute ours. We find no error of law as applied to those facts. Further, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties reveal that each point here presented has been heretofore determined by decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court of Florida. Nothing would be added to the jurisprudence of this State by again discussing those points here.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, the judgment and sentence appealed are

Affirmed.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 So. 2d 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-state-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack