Mackey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mackey v. State

354 So. 2d 117

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 24, 1978

DocketNos. 76-317, 76-318 and 77-468

StatusPublished

This text of 354 So. 2d 117 (Mackey 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

Mackey v. State, 354 So. 2d 117 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By these consolidated appeals, appellant seeks the reversal of (1) his conviction of three counts of robbery, (2) an order of revocation of probation and (3) an order denying post conviction relief.

Appellant has raised the following points on appeal, to-wit: that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that intent to kill or maim if resisted is an element of the offense of robbery; that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for continuance of the probation revocation hearing; and that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.

We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in the light of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1973); Stevens v. State, 351 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Baker v. State, 336 So.2d 364 (Fla.1976); Lyles v. State, 312 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

By these consolidated appeals, appellant seeks the reversal of (1) his conviction of three counts of robbery, (2) an order of revocation of probation and (3) an order denying post conviction relief.

Appellant has raised the following points on appeal, to-wit: that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that intent to kill or maim if resisted is an element of the offense of robbery; that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for continuance of the probation revocation hearing; and that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence.

We have carefully considered appellant’s contentions in the light of the record on appeal, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1973); Stevens v. State, 351 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Baker v. State, 336 So.2d 364 (Fla.1976); Lyles v. State, 312 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

354 So. 2d 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackey-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack