Mack v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mack v. State

365 So. 2d 811, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14069

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 2, 1979

DocketNo. 78-2317

StatusPublished

This text of 365 So. 2d 811 (Mack 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

Mack v. State, 365 So. 2d 811, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14069 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner contends that he was deprived of a right to a fair trial by virtue of the fact that shortly after the crime was committed he was subjected to an illegally suggestive lineup without benefit of counsel. This point was raised at the trial level by a motion to suppress, which was denied. The judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal. See: Mack v. State, 323 So.2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

[812]*812The petition filed herein shows on its face that the trial court was correct in summarily denying the petition to vacate. See: Paramore v. State, 251 So.2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. Matera, 266 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972); Yanks v. State, 273 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Nelson v. State, 281 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

Therefore, the order under review is affirmed and the relief sought by the petitioner is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner contends that he was deprived of a right to a fair trial by virtue of the fact that shortly after the crime was committed he was subjected to an illegally suggestive lineup without benefit of counsel. This point was raised at the trial level by a motion to suppress, which was denied. The judgment of conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal. See: Mack v. State, 323 So.2d 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

[812]*812The petition filed herein shows on its face that the trial court was correct in summarily denying the petition to vacate. See: Paramore v. State, 251 So.2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); State v. Matera, 266 So.2d 661 (Fla.1972); Yanks v. State, 273 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Nelson v. State, 281 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

Therefore, the order under review is affirmed and the relief sought by the petitioner is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 So. 2d 811, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-state-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack