Hoffman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hoffman v. State

163 So. 2d 797, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4231

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 8, 1964

DocketNo. 4378

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 So. 2d 797 (Hoffman 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

Hoffman v. State, 163 So. 2d 797, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4231 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Earl Frank Hoffman appeals an order denying his motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Appellant’s motion failed to allege that he was indigent and unable to employ counsel at the time he entered his plea. The motion therefore was legally insufficient. See Dias v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 766; Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 566; Auflick v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 767; Duke v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 549.

The order appealed is therefore affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile his motion in accordance with the rule announced in Turner v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 11.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Earl Frank Hoffman appeals an order denying his motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Appellant’s motion failed to allege that he was indigent and unable to employ counsel at the time he entered his plea. The motion therefore was legally insufficient. See Dias v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 766; Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 566; Auflick v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 767; Duke v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 549.

The order appealed is therefore affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile his motion in accordance with the rule announced in Turner v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 11.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 So. 2d 797, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-state-fladistctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack