Weiner v. State

Supreme Court of Florida

Weiner v. State

184 So. 777, 135 Fla. 191, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1530

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided November 28, 1938·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We have carefully considered the transcript of record and the briefs of counsel for the respective parties, and are of the opinion that the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record did not abuse his discretion in entering his order of July 12, 1938, denying petition for writ of error coram nobis. It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the lower court be, and the same is, hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur. .Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

We have carefully considered the transcript of record and the briefs of counsel for the respective parties, and are of the opinion that the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record did not abuse his discretion in entering his order of July 12, 1938, denying petition for writ of error coram nobis. It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the lower court be, and the same is, hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur. .Wi-iitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Weiner v. State, 184 So. 777, 135 Fla. 191, 1938 Fla. LEXIS 1530 (Fla. 1938).

Pincite

184 So. 777 (Weiner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.