Scott v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scott v. State

355 So. 2d 822

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 13, 1978

DocketNo. HH-28

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 355 So. 2d 822 (Scott 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

Scott v. State, 355 So. 2d 822 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the Court on appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, entered, on a jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of involuntary sexual battery and burglary of a dwelling and sentencing him as a multiple felony offender to thirty (30) years imprisonment for involuntary sexual battery, and life imprisonment for burglary.

The public defender has filed a brief reviewing the evidence in this case and any possible objections by Defendant to the proceedings below, with the conclusion that no error occurred in the proceedings. On motion of the public defender, this Court has allowed Defendant additional time within which to file any brief in his own behalf he may , deem advisable. No such brief has been filed. We have, nevertheless, reviewed the record and find no error.

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the Court on appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court, Second Judicial Circuit, entered, on a jury verdict finding Defendant guilty of involuntary sexual battery and burglary of a dwelling and sentencing him as a multiple felony offender to thirty (30) years imprisonment for involuntary sexual battery, and life imprisonment for burglary.

The public defender has filed a brief reviewing the evidence in this case and any possible objections by Defendant to the proceedings below, with the conclusion that no error occurred in the proceedings. On motion of the public defender, this Court has allowed Defendant additional time within which to file any brief in his own behalf he may , deem advisable. No such brief has been filed. We have, nevertheless, reviewed the record and find no error.

Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 So. 2d 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-state-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack