ALPHONSE NABOZNY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1964-05-13
No. 4390
SMITH, C. J„ and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.
163 So. 2d 765 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1964) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Alphonse Nabozny appeals an order denying his motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The State has filed a motion to quash this appeal on the ground that the petitioner is no longer in custody of the Division of Corrections, which appears to be true. The motion therefore is well founded. The relief contemplated by Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 applies only to prisoners “in custody” under sentence of a court established by the laws of Florida. See Frappied v. State, Fla.App., 163 So.2d 502 (2nd Dist.).

Motion to quash granted.

SMITH, C. J„ and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • McCORMICK v. State, 164 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
    …common law writs of habeas corpus and coram nobis.3 Accordingly the order appealed is affirmed without prejudice to his right to seek such other relief as the law affords. Affirmed. . § 775.10 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. . Nabozny v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 765; Frappied v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 502. . United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); Mitchell v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 155 So. 2d 868; Ex Parte Welles, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 708.…
  • Davis v. State, 191 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
    …llsborough court denied relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. One, [*444] apparently because the defendant was not then in custody under that judgment and sentence. Frappied v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 502; Nabozny v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So. 2d 765. Presumably, had an appeal been taken from that order denying relief, the doctrine enunciated in Red-dick v. State 2 might have been invoked for a showing that the unusual, exceptional and particular circumstances of this defendant could result in a…
  • Bryant v. State, 174 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
    …unless the movant is in custody under the sentence attacked. The Rule itself states: “A prisoner in custody under sentence * * * may move * * * to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.” (Emphasis supplied) See Nabozny v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 765; Frappied v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 502. The identical point involved in the case at bar was presented in McCormick v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 557, and this court held: “ * * * Criminal Rule 1, * * * is not available to collateral…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw