Royster v. State
164 So. 2d 26, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4247
Opinion
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
Royster v. State, 164 So. 2d 26, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4247 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).
164 So. 2d 26 (Royster v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)