Saxton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Saxton v. State

284 So. 2d 232, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6473

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 24, 1973

DocketNo. 73-291

StatusPublished

This text of 284 So. 2d 232 (Saxton 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

Saxton v. State, 284 So. 2d 232, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6473 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

MANN, Chief Judge.

Saxton questions on this appeal the propriety of reception of his plea of nolo con-tendere. The trial judge appointed three psychiatrists to inquire into Saxton’s sanity at the time of the offense and his compe[233]*233tency to stand trial, after which he held a hearing required by CrPR 3.210, 33 F.S.A., and determined that Saxton was competent to stand trial. His understanding of the nature of the plea and of its consequences was adequately brought out before its acceptance. Therefore we think an affirmance is mandated by the decisions of our Supreme Court in Fowler v. State, Fla.1971, 255 So.2d 513, 515; Brown v. State, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 68, 70; Brock v. State, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 344. Accordingly we dispense with oral argument pursuant to F.A.R. 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A., and affirm.

Affirmed.

McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

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

MANN, Chief Judge.

Saxton questions on this appeal the propriety of reception of his plea of nolo con-tendere. The trial judge appointed three psychiatrists to inquire into Saxton’s sanity at the time of the offense and his compe[233]*233tency to stand trial, after which he held a hearing required by CrPR 3.210, 33 F.S.A., and determined that Saxton was competent to stand trial. His understanding of the nature of the plea and of its consequences was adequately brought out before its acceptance. Therefore we think an affirmance is mandated by the decisions of our Supreme Court in Fowler v. State, Fla.1971, 255 So.2d 513, 515; Brown v. State, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 68, 70; Brock v. State, Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 344. Accordingly we dispense with oral argument pursuant to F.A.R. 3.10(e), 32 F.S.A., and affirm.

Affirmed.

McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 So. 2d 232, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saxton-v-state-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack