Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Royster v. State

Royster v. State

164 So. 2d 26, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4247
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 19, 1964
DocketNo. 64-11
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 164 So. 2d 26 (Royster 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
Royster v. State, 164 So. 2d 26, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4247 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The burden of appellant’s petition for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix in the trial court was that his self-employed counsel was inadequate. Pie appeals from a denial of his petition.

Appellant presents nothing more than his conclusion that the counsel he employed was inadequate. Nothing short of a retrial of the case would satisfy such an allegation and we do not so construe the office of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. Everett v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 714 [opinion filed March 17, 1964],

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

Related

Harden v. State
352 So. 2d 576 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Garner v. State
218 So. 2d 460 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
164 So. 2d 26, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royster-v-state-fladistctapp-1964.