MARCOS ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 Second District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the lower court's decision in a case involving Marcos Rodriguez and the State of Florida. The court's per curiam opinion provided no specific reasoning but cited numerous prior Florida Supreme Court and District Court of Appeal decisions.
The appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
“Affirmed.”
This is the court's direct ruling on the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not provide specific facts of the case. It is an appeal by Marcos Rodriguez against the State of Florida.…
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 Annulment cases and more on FLexlaw
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
MARCOS RODRIGUEZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-1131 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________)
Opinion filed October 16, 2019.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Barbara Twine Thomas, Judge.
Marcos Rodriguez, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Vlahovich v. State, 788 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2001); State v.
Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000); McDonald v. State, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA
2013); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d
861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); State v.
Retalic, 902 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); State v. Smith, 832 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2002); Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
KHOUZAM, C.J., and CASANUEVA and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000)
- Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- McDONALD v. State, 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Paul v. State, 830 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Haynes v. State, 106 So. 3d 481 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- State v. Retalic, 902 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Moore v. State, 832 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Vlahovich v. State, 788 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2001)