Smith v. State

167 So. 2d 225, 1964 Fla. LEXIS 2664
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided July 15, 1964·No. No. 33038·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari reflected probable jurisdiction in this Court. We issued the writ and have heard argument of the parties. After hearing argument and upon further consideration of the matter we have determined that the petition is without merit. Therefore, the writ must be and is hereby discharged and the petition for writ of certiorari is dismissed.

It is so ordered.

DREW, C. J., O’CONNELL and CALDWELL, JJ., and CARROLL, District Court Judge, concur. THOMAS, J., dissents with opinion. ROBERTS and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., dissent and concur with THOMAS, J.

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

Smith v. State, 167 So. 2d 225, 1964 Fla. LEXIS 2664 (Fla. 1964).

167 So. 2d 225 (Smith v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilhelm v. State
515 So. 2d 1343 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
State v. Gervasio
462 A.2d 144 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1983)
State v. Gamble
370 So. 2d 428 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Gustafson v. State
243 So. 2d 615 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)