Sostre v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sostre v. State

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

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 3, 1981

DocketNo. 79-782

StatusPublished

This text of 394 So. 2d 558 (Sostre 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 So. 2d 558, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sostre-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack