JAMES E. VERTREE, 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 appellant, convicted of two crimes, appealed the denial of his motions to vacate judgments and sentences. The appellate court, despite irregular procedure in filing a single appeal for two separate cases, consolidated the causes and affirmed the lower court's orders.
No, the appellate court found no error in the trial court's denial of the motions to vacate the judgments and sentences.
“The appellant was convicted of two independent crimes and filed separate motions under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, to vacate the separate judgments of conviction and sentences imposed thereon.”
Establishes the appellant's actions in the lower court leading to the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of two separate crimes and subsequently filed motions under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 to vacate the judgments and sent…
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 Vacating Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was convicted of two independent crimes and filed separate motions under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, to vacate the separate judgments of conviction and sentences imposed thereon. Appellant sued out a single appeal to review the orders of denial in both cases. This procedure was irregular but the court, mindful of the fact that the *772appeal was sued out in proper person and in an abundance of caution, treated the same as independent appeals and consolidated the causes for the purposes of the appeal, which is the posture of the pleadings of appellant.
The appeal having been perfected and the court having carefully reviewed the record and finding no error, the orders appealed, which were entered in cases Nos. 1371 and 1373, according to the serial numbers of the trial court, entered on April 26, 1963, and July 1, 1963, respectively, are severally
Affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J, and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.