Siegel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Siegel v. State

289 So. 2d 764, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8132

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 5, 1974

DocketNo. 73-772

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 289 So. 2d 764 (Siegel 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

Siegel v. State, 289 So. 2d 764, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8132 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and assaulting a person therein. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to twenty years in the state prison. The judgment and sentence were affirmed upon appeal. Siegel v. State, Fla.App.1973, 274 So.2d 9. Thereafter, the appellant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR, 33 F.S.A., for relief from the judgment and sentence. The ground of the pro se motion was that the trial judge may have been prejudiced against the appellant. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

We affirm for two reasons. First, the facts alleged in the motion do not tend to indicate prejudice against the appellant, but rather indicate that this cause was carefully handled by the trial court in order to avoid any appearance of prejudice in that the original trial judge transferred the case to another judge upon learning that a claim of influence had been made. Second, the matters alleged in the petition do not constitute a proper ground for a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrP. [765]*765R. The appellant is entitled to only one appeal from the judgment and sentence and that appeal has been made and carefully considered. See State v. Matera, Fla. 1972, 266 So.2d 661.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny and assaulting a person therein. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to twenty years in the state prison. The judgment and sentence were affirmed upon appeal. Siegel v. State, Fla.App.1973, 274 So.2d 9. Thereafter, the appellant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR, 33 F.S.A., for relief from the judgment and sentence. The ground of the pro se motion was that the trial judge may have been prejudiced against the appellant. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

We affirm for two reasons. First, the facts alleged in the motion do not tend to indicate prejudice against the appellant, but rather indicate that this cause was carefully handled by the trial court in order to avoid any appearance of prejudice in that the original trial judge transferred the case to another judge upon learning that a claim of influence had been made. Second, the matters alleged in the petition do not constitute a proper ground for a motion pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrP. [765]*765R. The appellant is entitled to only one appeal from the judgment and sentence and that appeal has been made and carefully considered. See State v. Matera, Fla. 1972, 266 So.2d 661.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 So. 2d 764, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 8132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-state-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack