BIENVENIDO LOPETEGUI, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1972-01-25
No. 71-811
Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
257 So. 2d 914 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1972) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from a summary denial of a motion filed pursuant to CrPR 3.850 is affirmed upon authority of the rule that a motion pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A., may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Peterson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 223.

In the instant case the appellant has had a full appeal from his conviction, Lopeti-gui v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 399, and now seeks to challenge the procedural aspects of the cause again by motion. The motion was appropriately denied without evidentiary hearing by the trial judge.

Affirmed. '


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Grissom v. State, 259 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Swindle v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So. 2d 132; Suarez v. State, Fla. App.1969, 220 So. 2d 442; Grissom v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 57; Peterson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So. 2d 23; Lopetegui v. State, Fla.App.1972, 257 So. 2d 914 (opinion filed January 25, 1972).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw