MARVIN MORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant's issues and contentions raised on appeal were without merit.
The appellant, acting pro se, appealed judgments and sentences entered upon the revocation of five terms of probation. He raised several issues regard…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Recusal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, acting pro se, has appealed from judgments and sentences entered against him upon the revocation of five terms of probation. We have carefully examined, but have found no merit in the issues and contentions raised by the appellant. Addressing the points asserted in the appellant’s brief, we hold as follows:
1. Morris represented himself, at his request, at the revocation hearing, see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). No harmful effect has been demonstrated as a result of the court’s failure to permit him to do so at an earlier stage of the proceedings below. Section 924.33 Fla.Stat. (1979). 2. The apparent claim that the evidence against him was insufficient because of alleged inconsistencies of the state’s witnesses and the failure to preserve or introduce physical evidence of the spoils of the crime, is totally without substance. Russ v. State, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 924, 96 S.Ct. 267, 46 L.Ed.2d 250 (1975); Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363, 176 So. 169 (1937); see State v. Sobel, 363 So. 2d 324 (Fla.1978).
3. In the absence of a proper motion for recusal under Section 38.10, Fla. Stat. (1979), the trial judge correctly declined to disqualify himself. See, Crosby v. State, 97 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1957).
4. The state’s alleged failure to comply with the provisions of Section 949.11, Fla. Stat. (1979) is totally immaterial to the validity of the convictions under review. See, Grose v. Stack, 286 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).1
Affirmed.
. The contentions initially raised in the reply brief are both untimely and without merit. See, Williamson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975)
- Berry v. Castro Farms, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1975)
- State v. Sobel, 363 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1978)
- Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Butler, 423 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1975)
- Watkins v. Estelle, 423 U.S. 924 (U.S. 1975)
- Holland v. State, 129 Fla. 363 (Fla. 1937)
- Crosby v. State, 97 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1957)
- Williamson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Edsel Griffin v. State, 286 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)