Robbins v. State
This text of 564 So. 2d 256 (Robbins 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.
Opinion
John Anderson ROBBINS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida and Richard Dugger, Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
*257 John Anderson Robbins, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Habeas corpus is not a vehicle for obtaining additional appeals on issues which were raised or should have been raised on appeal or could have been challenged pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.850; White v. Duggar, 511 So.2d 554 (Fla. 1987). The issues raised by appellant were adequately addressed by this court in Robbins v. State, 370 So.2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Defendant is procedurally barred from seeking further relief by failing to meet the time constraints enumerated in Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P.
Appellees request for certification is denied.
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, BARFIELD and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
564 So. 2d 256, 1990 WL 102731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.