Lopetegui v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lopetegui v. State

257 So. 2d 914

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 25, 1972·No. No. 71-811·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a summary denial of a motion filed pursuant to CrPR 3.850 is affirmed upon authority of the rule that a motion pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A., may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Peterson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 223.

In the instant case the appellant has had a full appeal from his conviction, Lopeti-gui v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 399, and now seeks to challenge the procedural aspects of the cause again by motion. The motion was appropriately denied without evidentiary hearing by the trial judge.

Affirmed. '

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a summary denial of a motion filed pursuant to CrPR 3.850 is affirmed upon authority of the rule that a motion pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A., may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Peterson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 223.

In the instant case the appellant has had a full appeal from his conviction, Lopeti-gui v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 399, and now seeks to challenge the procedural aspects of the cause again by motion. The motion was appropriately denied without evidentiary hearing by the trial judge.

Affirmed. '

Lopetegui v. State, 257 So. 2d 914 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

257 So. 2d 914 (Lopetegui v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related