JAMES FRANKLIN LEWIS, 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 appellate court affirmed a robbery conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's denial of a motion for continuance or the defendant's lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for continuance. No, the appellant was not prejudiced by the lack of counsel at the preliminary hearing, as he was represented by counsel at arraignment and trial.
“In our opinion the appellant has failed to show abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the denial of the motion for continuance.
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 charged with robbery, pleaded not guilty, and was convicted after a trial. He appealed the conviction, arguing that the trial court …
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 Preliminary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was informed against," charged with robbery. He pleaded not guilty, was tried and convicted. On this appeal therefrom two points were presented. Appellant contends the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for continuance, and seeks reversal on the ground that he was without counsel at the preliminary hearing. We have considered these contentions in the light of the record and briefs and find them to be without merit. In dealing with the defendant’s motion for continuance the trial court was entitled to exercise a measure of discretion. In our opinion the appellant has failed to show abuse of discretion. See Raulerson v. State, Fla.1958, 102 So.2d 281; Vitiello v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 629; State v. Lampp, Fla.App. 1963, 155 So.2d 10. The fact that the defendant was without counsel at the preliminary hearing does not furnish basis for reversal of the subsequent judgment in the cause. The record fails to disclose any prejudice resulting to the defendant therefrom. At the time of arraignment he was represented by the public defender’s office, and pleaded not guilty; and he was represented by counsel at trial. See Brookins v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 578.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from should be and hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Raulerson v. State, 102 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1958)
- State v. Lampp, 155 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Brookins v. State, 174 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Floyd v. State, 167 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)