CHARLES W. MCCARTHY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1965-06-29
No. 64-899
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
177 So. 2d 63 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1965) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, where the record shows testimony was taken after defendant’s guilty plea, and defendant now contends in his motion that the court failed to take testimony to determine the degree of the crime charged pursuant to § 909.11 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. See: Sampson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 771.

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Mecalling v. Ralle Realty Co., Inc., 199 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See River Holding Co. v. Nickel, Fla.1953, 62 So. 2d 702; Kreiss Potassium Phosphate Co. v. Knight, 98 Fla. 1004, 124 So. 751 (1929) ; Winokur v. Mather, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 63; Dawson v. Dawson, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 536; Lieberbaum v. Surfcomber Hotel Corp., Fla. App.1960, 122 So. 2d 28.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw