Priest v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Priest v. State

450 So. 2d 318, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13358

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 1984

DocketNos. AV-11, AV-12

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 450 So. 2d 318 (Priest 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

Priest v. State, 450 So. 2d 318, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13358 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Arthur and Parker Priest, challenge the trial judge’s denial on the basis of King v. State, 104 So.2d 730 (Fla. 1957), of their respective motions to dismiss that count of the information charging them with conspiracy to traffic in cannabis. We affirm. See State v. Brandon, 399 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); State v. Cristodero, 426 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Appellant Parker Priest also argues that the trial judge’s imposition of a fine as a condition of parole violates Section 947.-13(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as interpreted in Ferrell v. State, 437 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The alleged error was not preserved below. Accordingly, we decline to reach the merits of the issue raised and dismiss without prejudice to appellants’ right to collaterally attack the sentence pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

BOOTH, SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Arthur and Parker Priest, challenge the trial judge’s denial on the basis of King v. State, 104 So.2d 730 (Fla. 1957), of their respective motions to dismiss that count of the information charging them with conspiracy to traffic in cannabis. We affirm. See State v. Brandon, 399 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); State v. Cristodero, 426 So.2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Appellant Parker Priest also argues that the trial judge’s imposition of a fine as a condition of parole violates Section 947.-13(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as interpreted in Ferrell v. State, 437 So.2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and Alexander v. State, 425 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The alleged error was not preserved below. Accordingly, we decline to reach the merits of the issue raised and dismiss without prejudice to appellants’ right to collaterally attack the sentence pursuant to Rule 3.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

BOOTH, SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 So. 2d 318, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 13358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/priest-v-state-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack