Hayborn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hayborn v. State

264 So. 2d 112, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6524

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 20, 1972

DocketNo. 71-492

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 264 So. 2d 112 (Hayborn 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

Hayborn v. State, 264 So. 2d 112, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6524 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis there, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed. See Cotton v. State, Third District Court of Appeal, 261 So.2d 179, opinion filed April 25, 1972; see also Killingsworth v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 299, 105 So. 834; Sanders v. State, Fla.App.1971, 241 So.2d 430, and York v. State, Fla.App.1969, 232 So.2d 767.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J, and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis there, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed. See Cotton v. State, Third District Court of Appeal, 261 So.2d 179, opinion filed April 25, 1972; see also Killingsworth v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 299, 105 So. 834; Sanders v. State, Fla.App.1971, 241 So.2d 430, and York v. State, Fla.App.1969, 232 So.2d 767.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J, and OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 So. 2d 112, 1972 Fla. App. LEXIS 6524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayborn-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack