ANTHONY WALTER STACEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
ANTHONY WALTER STACEY, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
165 So. 2d 222
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1964)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
This appeal is from an order of the trial court denying a motion for post conviction relief. The motion was deficient in failing to allege the insolvency of the appellant.
The order appealed is affirmed without prejudice to the appellant to file a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix alleging facts, if he can, showing his entitlement to relief.
Affirmed.
WHITE, Acting C. J., and ANDREWS and KANNER, (Ret.), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elester S. Roberts v. State, 169 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…entered in proceedings instituted under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S. A. ch. 924 Appendix. The motion for post conviction relief did not allege any matters for which such relief could be granted. See and compare Stacey v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So. 2d 222; Dias v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 158 So. 2d 766; Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 566; Auflick v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 767; King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 440. Affirmed. SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.…
-
Garland Leeds v. State, 187 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…of the circuit court, previously entered in connection with another motion, adjudging the defendant insolvent. However, there is no allegation of insolvency at time of arraignment, and this makes the motion defective. Stacey v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 222; Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 566; and Gaines v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So. 2d 887. The usual procedure in this type case is to affirm, without prejudice to file a sufficient motion. Gaines v. State, supra; Armstrong v. State, Fla.A…
-
Riley v. State, 195 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed under the authority of Hinton v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 522; Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 566; Stacey v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 222; and Dias v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 766. We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A ALLEN, C. J., and PIERCE and HOB-SON, JJ., con…