Griffith v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Griffith v. State

435 So. 2d 398, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21758

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 29, 1983·No. No. 82-2372·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and his sentences in all respects. In addition, we note that appellant has raised the question of whether this case should be remanded so that the trial court may rule on his earlier filed motion for new trial. No remand is necessary here because by filing a timely notice of appeal, appellant effectively abandoned his motion for new trial. State ex rel. Faircloth v. The District Court of Ap[399]*399peal, Third District, 187 So.2d 890 (Fla. 1966); Perez v. City of Tampa, 181 So.2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and his sentences in all respects. In addition, we note that appellant has raised the question of whether this case should be remanded so that the trial court may rule on his earlier filed motion for new trial. No remand is necessary here because by filing a timely notice of appeal, appellant effectively abandoned his motion for new trial. State ex rel. Faircloth v. The District Court of Ap[399]*399peal, Third District, 187 So.2d 890 (Fla. 1966); Perez v. City of Tampa, 181 So.2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).

AFFIRMED.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Griffith v. State, 435 So. 2d 398, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21758 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

435 So. 2d 398 (Griffith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related