Parks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parks v. State

256 So. 2d 40

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 14, 1971

DocketNo. 71-913

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 256 So. 2d 40 (Parks 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

Parks v. State, 256 So. 2d 40 (Fla. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty of rape after a jury trial. The judgment was affirmed upon appeal. See Parks v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 431. This appeal is from a denial of appellant’s third petition for relief pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. Appellant’s petition for relief alleges that he did not receive a fair trial because of: (1) remarks of the state’s attorney which were not supported by the evidence, (2) remarks of the state’s attorney designed to arouse racial prejudice in the jury, (3) the failure of the trial court to sever appellant’s trial from that of the other defendants even though appellant’s privately employed counsel failed to move for a severance.

We hold that appellant’s petition fails to raise an issue which is properly to be considered upon a petition pursuant to CrPR 3.850. The proceedings provided in CrPR 3.850 are not a second appeal. Wilcox v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 427; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 27; Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506. Appellant has been afforded a full review of his trial and a petition which does not set forth facts impairing the fundamental fairness of the trial or the denial of specific constitutional protection is properly denied. Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506; Cade v. Balkcom, 361 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1966).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was found guilty of rape after a jury trial. The judgment was affirmed upon appeal. See Parks v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 206 So.2d 431. This appeal is from a denial of appellant’s third petition for relief pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. Appellant’s petition for relief alleges that he did not receive a fair trial because of: (1) remarks of the state’s attorney which were not supported by the evidence, (2) remarks of the state’s attorney designed to arouse racial prejudice in the jury, (3) the failure of the trial court to sever appellant’s trial from that of the other defendants even though appellant’s privately employed counsel failed to move for a severance.

We hold that appellant’s petition fails to raise an issue which is properly to be considered upon a petition pursuant to CrPR 3.850. The proceedings provided in CrPR 3.850 are not a second appeal. Wilcox v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 427; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 27; Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506. Appellant has been afforded a full review of his trial and a petition which does not set forth facts impairing the fundamental fairness of the trial or the denial of specific constitutional protection is properly denied. Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506; Cade v. Balkcom, 361 F.2d 212 (5th Cir. 1966).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 So. 2d 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-state-fladistctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack