GEORGE N. HARRINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1980-09-16
No. 80-1719
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and NESBITT, JJ.
388 So. 2d 34 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1980) Caution
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(g), having taken this appeal from the summary denial of his motion for post conviction relief under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 and this court having considered the record presented and having further determined that it conclusively appears therefrom that petitioner is entitled to no relief, the denial of his motion is affirmed. See: Mitchell v. State, 167 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Johnson v. State, 183 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Wedenfeller v. State, 355 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Marshall v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
    …ltimately successful on appeal. Pendente lite payments to the spouse are to “sustain the party while the litigation ensues,” and the appellant is not “entitled to restitution” even if the payments are later found to be “erroneous.” Atkins v. Atkins, 388 So. 2d 34, 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). However, Atkins involved a request for. restitution on an award later determined to be “erroneous” rather than a request for restitution based on the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction. On the other Hand, other cases explai…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw