Sostre v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sostre v. State

394 So. 2d 558, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19576

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 3, 1981·No. No. 79-782·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation and sentence imposed. The court’s refusal to continue the proceeding until such time as appellant’s attorney could further prepare himself was not demonstrated to be a “gross and flagrant abuse of ... judicial discretion.” Williams v. Gunn, 279 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Padgett v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Santa Rosa County, 378 So.2d 58, 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Edwards v. Pratt, 335 So.2d 597 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Nor are we satisfied that the evidence of appellant’s possession of a firearm was insufficient to support the finding of the court.

Appellant’s remedy, if one exists, lies in a collateral action challenging his counsel’s effectiveness at the hearing.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation and sentence imposed. The court’s refusal to continue the proceeding until such time as appellant’s attorney could further prepare himself was not demonstrated to be a “gross and flagrant abuse of ... judicial discretion.” Williams v. Gunn, 279 So.2d 69, 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Padgett v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Santa Rosa County, 378 So.2d 58, 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Edwards v. Pratt, 335 So.2d 597 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). Nor are we satisfied that the evidence of appellant’s possession of a firearm was insufficient to support the finding of the court.

Appellant’s remedy, if one exists, lies in a collateral action challenging his counsel’s effectiveness at the hearing.

Affirmed.

Sostre v. State, 394 So. 2d 558, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19576 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

394 So. 2d 558 (Sostre v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related