STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. CHARLES FRANKLIN GIBSON, APPELLANT,
v.
E. WILSON PURDY, AS DIRECTOR OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT OF DADE COUNTY, 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 the denial of the petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus because the appellant failed to provide a sufficient record to demonstrate reversible error.
The appellant sought review of two lower court orders: denial of a Writ of Habeas Corpus and denial of a motion for relief. The notice of appeal was i…
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 Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
The Notice of Appeal herein seeks appellate review of an order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, which denied the petition of Gibson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and also an order of the Criminal Court of Record, which denied his motion for relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.Pr. 1.850, 33 F.S.A.
The Notice of Appeal filed in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida in the Habeas Corpus proceeding is ineffective to bring before this court an order of the Criminal Court of Record, denying a motion pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.Pr. 1.850. We consider, therefore, only the review of the Habeas Corpus proceeding.
The appellant has failed to include his petition for Habeas Corpus, filed in the Circuit Court, in the record on appeal. He has not brought us a sufficient record on appeal to demonstrate reversible error committed by the trial court. It is the duty of the appellant to provide the appeals court with a sufficient record to demonstrate reversible error. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 294.
Assuming arguendo that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a sufficient record were properly before us, this matter should be affirmed. See Clark v. State, ex rel. Rubin, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 807; State, ex rel. Gerstein v. Schulz, Fla.App. 1965, 180 So.2d 367; Hitson v. Mayo, Fla. 1957, 99 So.2d 297. The order herein appealed be and the same is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hernandez v. State, 323 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…tes that at the next recess a conference was held off the record, no ruling on the motion appears on the record. Therefore, the record is not sufficient to demonstrate reversible error on this point. See State ex rel. Gibson v. Purdy, Fla.App. 1969, 218 So. 2d 542. The third point raised by Hernandez is that it wás error to admit the hearsay testimony of one Jose Gutierrez, relating to inculpatory statements made by an accomplice, and to deny the defendant’s motion for mistrial on this ground. Hernandez cont…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State of Fla. ex rel. Kate Rubin, 122 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein v. Honorable George E. Schulz, 180 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Ernestine A. King, 207 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Hitson v. Mayo, 99 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1957)