Mitchell v. State
167 So. 2d 27
Opinion
By motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix filed in the lower court and by appeal from denial of that motion, appellant seeks relief upon grounds which indicate an attempt to employ Rule No. 1 as a substitute for timely appeal. The decisions in this State and analogous Federal authority are, with a single exception, not here significant, unanimous in denying relief under these circumstances. Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is not a substitute for appeal. Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mitchell v. State, 167 So. 2d 27 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).
167 So. 2d 27 (Mitchell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Harrington v. State
388 So. 2d 34 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Parks v. State
256 So. 2d 40 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)
Bretti v. State
239 So. 2d 527 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Suarez v. State
220 So. 2d 442 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Johnson v. State
183 So. 2d 862 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Crusoe v. State
183 So. 2d 600 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Wilcox v. State
171 So. 2d 427 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)