Hall v. State

309 So. 2d 248, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14388
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 7, 1975·No. No. 74-271·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s sole point on appeal is that the court erred in denying his motion for discharge under Rule 3.191(a)(1), R Cr P.

The motion for discharge, filed February 27, 1974, alleges that appellant was taken into custody on August 7, 1973, on the felony charge for which he stands convicted. These facts, if true, would make a prima facie case for discharge.

However, we must presume that in denying the motion the trial court necessarily found these allegations untrue. Since there is nothing in the record presented to us from which we can determine that the trial court’s finding was erroneous, error has not been shown.

Affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and MAGER and DOW-NEY, JJ., concur.

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

Hall v. State, 309 So. 2d 248, 1975 Fla. App. LEXIS 14388 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

309 So. 2d 248 (Hall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hough
332 So. 2d 98 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1976)
Montalvo v. State
323 So. 2d 674 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)