Mofield v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mofield v. State

496 So. 2d 172, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2049, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9811

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1846

StatusPublished

This text of 496 So. 2d 172 (Mofield 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

Mofield v. State, 496 So. 2d 172, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2049, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9811 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has not demonstrated an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the denial of appellant’s motion for a continuance of his jury trial on the charge of armed robbery. We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction. We do not pass upon appellant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective, and this affirmance is without prejudice to the right of appellant to assert that contention by an appropriate motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

DAUKSCH, ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has not demonstrated an abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the denial of appellant’s motion for a continuance of his jury trial on the charge of armed robbery. We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction. We do not pass upon appellant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective, and this affirmance is without prejudice to the right of appellant to assert that contention by an appropriate motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.

DAUKSCH, ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 So. 2d 172, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2049, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mofield-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.