Hunt v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hunt v. State

183 So. 2d 858, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5620

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 15, 1966·No. No. 65-818·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, we are required to review the propriety of an order denying a motion seeking relief, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

It appears that this is the second motion for such relief filed in the trial court by the appellant, and it contains substantially the same grounds as that considered by the court in the original motion and, therefore, no error has been made to appear in the trial court’s summarily disposing of same. See: Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 616; Rankin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 324.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, we are required to review the propriety of an order denying a motion seeking relief, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.

It appears that this is the second motion for such relief filed in the trial court by the appellant, and it contains substantially the same grounds as that considered by the court in the original motion and, therefore, no error has been made to appear in the trial court’s summarily disposing of same. See: Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 616; Rankin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 324.

Affirmed.

Hunt v. State, 183 So. 2d 858, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5620 (Fla. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

183 So. 2d 858 (Hunt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related