Rogers v. State

212 So. 2d 367
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 9, 1968
DocketJ-417
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 212 So. 2d 367 (Rogers 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
Rogers v. State, 212 So. 2d 367 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

212 So.2d 367 (1968)

Henry Fern ROGERS and Archie Herring, Appellants,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. J-417.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 9, 1968.

T. Edward Austin, Jr., Public Defender; and Ralph W. Nimmons, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

Appellants were convicted of the offense of robbery in the Criminal Court of Record of Duval County, Florida. The Public Defender's Office was appointed to represent and did represent the defendants at the trial and as well on this appeal.

The two grounds urged on this appeal are: (1) lack of sufficiency of evidence to support the verdicts, and (2) error of the court in appointing one attorney to represent two joint defendants.

As to the first question, this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury and the trial judge in the absence of a showing of such lack of competent evidence as to constitute a fundamental error. In this case, such lack was not shown to exist.

As to the other question, the appointment of one attorney to represent two defendants, this Court agrees with and *368 adopts as its opinion the holding of the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida in its recent case of Belton v. State, 211 So.2d 238.

In the case sub judice, there was no objection raised at the trial level as to the apportionment of counsel and there was not shown there nor in this court that there was a conflict or prejudice by reason of the same attorney representing both defendants. In fact, if we held otherwise, the same complaint could be made about one attorney representing both defendants on this appeal and so on ad infinitum.

Affirmed.

RAWLS, Acting C.J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.

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

Related

Morgan v. State
550 So. 2d 151 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Epps v. State
237 So. 2d 250 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Bell v. State
222 So. 2d 269 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Wilson v. State
221 So. 2d 1 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
Baker v. State
217 So. 2d 880 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)
State v. Youngblood
217 So. 2d 98 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1968)
Belton v. State
217 So. 2d 97 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 So. 2d 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-state-fladistctapp-1968.