Van Fripp v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Van Fripp v. State

412 So. 2d 915, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20649

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1982

DocketNo. 81-660

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 412 So. 2d 915 (Van Fripp 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

Van Fripp v. State, 412 So. 2d 915, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20649 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order revoking defendant’s probation together with the trial court’s decision not to disqualify itself after the defendant had suggested that the trial judge was a material witness. The two affidavits which accompanied defendant’s motion for disqualification failed to demonstrate conclusively that the trial judge possessed relevant information “going to some fact affecting the merits of the cause and about which no other witness might testify.” Wingate v. Mach, 117 Fla. 104, 157 So. 421, 422 (1934). See also State ex rel. Slora [916]*916v. Wessel, 403 So.2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (Hurley, J., concurring specially).

In addition, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to set aside his plea and conviction. Accordingly, both orders are AFFIRMED.

LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order revoking defendant’s probation together with the trial court’s decision not to disqualify itself after the defendant had suggested that the trial judge was a material witness. The two affidavits which accompanied defendant’s motion for disqualification failed to demonstrate conclusively that the trial judge possessed relevant information “going to some fact affecting the merits of the cause and about which no other witness might testify.” Wingate v. Mach, 117 Fla. 104, 157 So. 421, 422 (1934). See also State ex rel. Slora [916]*916v. Wessel, 403 So.2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (Hurley, J., concurring specially).

In addition, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to set aside his plea and conviction. Accordingly, both orders are AFFIRMED.

LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 So. 2d 915, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 20649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-fripp-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack