Tilly v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tilly v. State

256 So. 2d 547

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 18, 1972

DocketNo. 71-642

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 So. 2d 547 (Tilly 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

Tilly v. State, 256 So. 2d 547 (Fla. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant upon this appeal from a judgment of guilty upon a charge of aggravated assault urges reversal upon: (1) The court’s denial of a motion for continuance made upon the ground that he was dissatisfied with his court appointed counsel. (2) The court’s refusal to hear a further argument upon his motion for acquittal made at the close of the case by the state. No reversible error is shown. The motion for continuance was properly denied. Bowman v. United States, 409 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1969). The record reveals that appellant’s counsel fully argued his motion for acquittal. It was not error to refuse to allow extended and repetitious argument. The general rule is that the limitation of the time for argument rests in the discretion of the trial court. May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So. 115 (1925).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant upon this appeal from a judgment of guilty upon a charge of aggravated assault urges reversal upon: (1) The court’s denial of a motion for continuance made upon the ground that he was dissatisfied with his court appointed counsel. (2) The court’s refusal to hear a further argument upon his motion for acquittal made at the close of the case by the state. No reversible error is shown. The motion for continuance was properly denied. Bowman v. United States, 409 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1969). The record reveals that appellant’s counsel fully argued his motion for acquittal. It was not error to refuse to allow extended and repetitious argument. The general rule is that the limitation of the time for argument rests in the discretion of the trial court. May v. State, 89 Fla. 78, 103 So. 115 (1925).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 So. 2d 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilly-v-state-fladistctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack