Holzapfel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holzapfel v. State

247 So. 2d 754, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6728

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1971

DocketNo. 70-813

StatusPublished

This text of 247 So. 2d 754 (Holzapfel 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

Holzapfel v. State, 247 So. 2d 754, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6728 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of our review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we are of the opinion that the appellant has .failed to demonstrate reversible error. The final order from which this appeal is taken is, therefore, affirmed. See Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 475; Hield v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 235; McMann v. Richardson, 1970, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763; Maxwell v. State, Mo.1970, 459 S.W.2d 388; Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir.1966, 356 F.2d 75; State v. McInnes, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 581; Mann v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 472; Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 642; Cauley v. United States, 5 Cir.1966, 355 F.2d 175; Ball v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 523; Manning v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 360; Moore v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1968, 401 F.2d 525; Boone v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 869; McGriff v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1970, 431 F.2d 897; and Forbes v. Wainwright, D.C.M.D.Fla.1970, 312 F.Supp. 465; Nichols v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 430.

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

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

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of our review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we are of the opinion that the appellant has .failed to demonstrate reversible error. The final order from which this appeal is taken is, therefore, affirmed. See Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 475; Hield v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 235; McMann v. Richardson, 1970, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763; Maxwell v. State, Mo.1970, 459 S.W.2d 388; Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir.1966, 356 F.2d 75; State v. McInnes, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 581; Mann v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 472; Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 642; Cauley v. United States, 5 Cir.1966, 355 F.2d 175; Ball v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 523; Manning v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 360; Moore v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1968, 401 F.2d 525; Boone v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 869; McGriff v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1970, 431 F.2d 897; and Forbes v. Wainwright, D.C.M.D.Fla.1970, 312 F.Supp. 465; Nichols v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 430.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 So. 2d 754, 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holzapfel-v-state-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack