Kelly v. State
925 So. 2d 1137, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5736, 2006 WL 1040535
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Kelly v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 857 So. 2d 949 →
Opinion
AFFIRMED. See Trocola v. State, 867 So.2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that “the denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the action of the court will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear showing that there has been a ‘palpable’ abuse of discretion to the disadvantage of the accused, or, unless the rights of the accused might have been jeopardized by the continuance determination”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kelly v. State, 925 So. 2d 1137, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5736, 2006 WL 1040535 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).
925 So. 2d 1137 (Kelly v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Trocola v. State
867 So. 2d 1229 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)