J. B. PARRISH, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
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 due process rights were not violated by the trial court's refusal to issue subpoenas, as no request was made.
Appellant was convicted of issuing a worthless check and appealed, alleging a denial of due process due to the trial court's refusal to issue subpoena…
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 Compulsory Process cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged in an information filed in the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County with the offense of issuing a worthless check. After a trial by jury in which he was represented by counsel, appellant was convicted and sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment in the State prison. It is from the judgment and sentence that this appeal is taken.
Appellant’s principal point on appeal alleges a denial of due process occasioned by the trial court’s refusal to cause subpoenas to be issued to witnesses whose testimony was deemed necessary to establish appellant’s innocence. The record fails to support this contention. It nowhere appears that the issuance of witness subpoenas was requested by appellant either before or during the trial. Nor does the record.reveal any objection by appellant to being placed on trial without the presence of witnesses whose testimony was considered necessary to his defense.
We have carefully considered the remaining points on appeal. Each contention made is not only unsupported by the record, but is affirmatively refuted thereby.
The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eve Pence v. Ennis, 163 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…entitled to other credits, leaving a balance due of $750. The record on appeal does not contain a transcript or narrative report of the trial. We must, therefore, affirm. See East Coast Dry Goods Co., Inc. v. Somerset Sportswear, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 68; Widmeyer v. Olds, Fla.App. 1962, 144 So. 2d 825; Pan American Metal Products Co., Inc. v. Healy, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So. 2d 96, certiorari dismissed without opinion, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 651; and Insana v. Hasty, Fla. App.1959, 109 So. 2d 791. Affi…
-
State v. Levine, 258 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ettled rule of law making it mandatory that the defendant subpoena the witnesses he expects to rely upon for his defense. This rule has been clearly set forth in Patrick v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 62. See also Parrish v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So. 2d 68. We recognize the rule as stated and simply hold that there is not sufficient record before us to indicate that the trial judge erred in finding that this case constituted an exception to the general rule. Affirmed.…