Pell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pell v. State

393 So. 2d 1140, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19468

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 27, 1981

DocketNo. 80-2278

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 393 So. 2d 1140 (Pell 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

Pell v. State, 393 So. 2d 1140, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19468 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that petitioner is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed. The entitlement to discharge for violation of the speedy trial rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, is a matter which could have been raised on direct appeal and is not the proper subject for collateral attack. Morrison v. State, 283 So.2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see also, Adams v. State, 380 So.2d 423 (Fla.1980); Durcan v. State, 383 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Clements v. State, 320 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Phillips v. State, 313 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that petitioner is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed. The entitlement to discharge for violation of the speedy trial rule, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, is a matter which could have been raised on direct appeal and is not the proper subject for collateral attack. Morrison v. State, 283 So.2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); see also, Adams v. State, 380 So.2d 423 (Fla.1980); Durcan v. State, 383 So.2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Clements v. State, 320 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Phillips v. State, 313 So.2d 428 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 So. 2d 1140, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pell-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack