CONSOLIDATED MOTOR INNS

v.

ALIAS ENTERPRISES, LTD.

Citator

Cited By

• Engle v. State, 438 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1983)
  …pellant an opportunity to cross-examine and confront Stevens, contends appellant. He further asserts that the judge was not only aware of, but also considered the “inadmissible evidence”. See Alford v. State, 355 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 935, 98 S.Ct. 2835, 56 L.Ed.2d 778 (1978). Appellant cites Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326 (1967), and Gardner v. Florida, for the proposition that the “right of confrontation protected by cross-examination is a right t…
• Brown v. Louie L. Wainwright, 392 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1981)
  …members of this Court that they could not properly perform their assigned appellate functions. Plainly, it would not. Just as trial judges are aware of matters they do not consider in sentencing, Alford v. State, 355 So. 2d 108 (Fla.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 935, 98 S.Ct. 2835, 56 L.Ed.2d 778 (1978), so appellate judges are cognizant of information that they disregard in the performance of their judicial tasks.16 The upshot of this is that petitioners’ claims are untenable. Ill We cannot pass this opport…
• Magill v. State, 457 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1984)
  …members of this Court that they could not properly perform their assigned appellate functions. Plainly, it would not. Just as trial judges are aware of matters they do not consider in sentencing, Alford v. State, 355 So. 2d 108 (Fla.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 935 [98 S.Ct. 2835, 56 L.Ed.2d 778] (1978), so appellate- judges are cognizant of information that they disregard in the performance of their judicial tasks. The upshot of this is that petitioners’ claims áre untenable. Id. (footnote omitted.) The re…