Griffith v. State
This text of 435 So. 2d 398 (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.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
435 So. 2d 398, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 21758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.