Lee v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lee v. State

273 So. 2d 403

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1973

DocketNo. 72-722

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 273 So. 2d 403 (Lee 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

Lee v. State, 273 So. 2d 403 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Oliver Lee, pro se, appeals from a conviction based on a jury verdict on the charge of robbery.

Appellant contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

We have considered appellant’s contentions in light of the record on appeal and the briefs and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. See: Luster v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 910; Cf., State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So.2d 721. We have reached our decision without considering the merits of an affidavit of another prisoner, George Hagin, which purports to absolve appellant of complicity in the commission of the crime for which he was convicted. That information was not considered since it is not properly before us in this appeal. This is not to say that it cannot be brought to the attention of the trial court in an appropriate proceeding.

Therefore, for the reasons stated the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Oliver Lee, pro se, appeals from a conviction based on a jury verdict on the charge of robbery.

Appellant contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

We have considered appellant’s contentions in light of the record on appeal and the briefs and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. See: Luster v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 910; Cf., State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So.2d 721. We have reached our decision without considering the merits of an affidavit of another prisoner, George Hagin, which purports to absolve appellant of complicity in the commission of the crime for which he was convicted. That information was not considered since it is not properly before us in this appeal. This is not to say that it cannot be brought to the attention of the trial court in an appropriate proceeding.

Therefore, for the reasons stated the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 So. 2d 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack