Manning v. State
199 So. 2d 310, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4867
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Manning v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 203 So. 2d 360 →
Opinion
The only question presented by appellant is whether the allegations of appellant’s pro se motion, filed under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, were sufficient to warrant the granting of a plenary hearing. The record reflects that appellant was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceeding, including arraignment. Hence the trial court was correct in holding that the appellant is entitled to no relief. Bryant v. State, 174 So.2d 41 (D.C.A.Fla.1965); Sampson v. State, 158 So.2d 771 (D.C.A.Fla.1963).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Manning v. State, 199 So. 2d 310, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4867 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967).
199 So. 2d 310 (Manning v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Sampson v. State
158 So. 2d 771 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Bryant v. State
174 So. 2d 41 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)