Horton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Horton v. State

281 So. 2d 387, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7667

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 1, 1973

DocketNo. 73-269

StatusPublished

This text of 281 So. 2d 387 (Horton 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

Horton v. State, 281 So. 2d 387, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7667 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Chief Judge.

Horton appeals from denial without evidentiary hearing of his petition for post-conviction relief. He relies on an affidavit of Kenneth Stringer, in which Stringer states that he was the one who had sexual relations with the victim for whose rape Horton was said to have been convicted. Stringer’s affidavit also refers to his “partner” who was present, but does not identify that partner. Thus the most that can be said for the affidavit is that it asserts Stringer’s guilt, not Horton’s innocence, although Stringer would assert that he was innocent of rape because the act, though there had been prior threats, was accomplished “without displaying the pistol or using any force whatsoever to harm her.” If the partner was Horton, he would still be guilty as a principal for having aided and abetted the crime. State v. Roby, Fla. 1971, 246 So.2d 566.

Oral argument is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 3.10(e), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and the order denying the petition is

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

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

MANN, Chief Judge.

Horton appeals from denial without evidentiary hearing of his petition for post-conviction relief. He relies on an affidavit of Kenneth Stringer, in which Stringer states that he was the one who had sexual relations with the victim for whose rape Horton was said to have been convicted. Stringer’s affidavit also refers to his “partner” who was present, but does not identify that partner. Thus the most that can be said for the affidavit is that it asserts Stringer’s guilt, not Horton’s innocence, although Stringer would assert that he was innocent of rape because the act, though there had been prior threats, was accomplished “without displaying the pistol or using any force whatsoever to harm her.” If the partner was Horton, he would still be guilty as a principal for having aided and abetted the crime. State v. Roby, Fla. 1971, 246 So.2d 566.

Oral argument is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 3.10(e), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., and the order denying the petition is

Affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 So. 2d 387, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 7667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack