Stehli v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stehli v. State

134 So. 2d 257

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1961

DocketNo. 61-144

StatusPublished

This text of 134 So. 2d 257 (Stehli 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

Stehli v. State, 134 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was convicted of operating a gambling house and bookmaking and upon judgment and sentence of the court given a one year sentence on each charge to run concurrently, appeals from said judgment and sentence. He had been charged in a two count information and urges error in the proceedings below in the following particulars: (1) that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was insufficient, (2) that the State failed to make an election as to which count of the information it was proceeding under, (3) that the evidence failed to establish that he was operating a gambling room, and (4) that the trial judge erred in refusing to give certain charges to the jury.

We have examined the record and find that the points urged by the appellant are not well taken. See: Chacon v. State, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 578; Channell v. State of Florida, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 284; Moorman v. State, 157 Fla. 267, 25 So.2d 563; and Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367.

Therefore, the judgment and sentence are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, who was convicted of operating a gambling house and bookmaking and upon judgment and sentence of the court given a one year sentence on each charge to run concurrently, appeals from said judgment and sentence. He had been charged in a two count information and urges error in the proceedings below in the following particulars: (1) that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was insufficient, (2) that the State failed to make an election as to which count of the information it was proceeding under, (3) that the evidence failed to establish that he was operating a gambling room, and (4) that the trial judge erred in refusing to give certain charges to the jury.

We have examined the record and find that the points urged by the appellant are not well taken. See: Chacon v. State, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 578; Channell v. State of Florida, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 284; Moorman v. State, 157 Fla. 267, 25 So.2d 563; and Febre v. State, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So.2d 367.

Therefore, the judgment and sentence are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 So. 2d 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stehli-v-state-fladistctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack