JACK SAMARITANO, ALIAS JAKE SAM MARITION, ALIAS JAKE SAM SAMARITANO,
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for manslaughter, finding no reversible error and relying on prior rulings to resolve the defendant's contentions.
The court held that all contentions presented by the plaintiff in error must be resolved against them, and no reversible error appeared in the record.
“We have considered all questions and contentions presented by the plaintiff in error and find that each and all of them must be resolved against the plaintiff in error on authority of the former opinions and judgments of this Court and that no useful purpose may he served by now writing an extended opinion dealing with questions which have been heretofore fully answered and definitely determined.”
This quote explains the court's reasoning for not writing an extended opinion, stating that the issues have been previously decided and should be resolved against the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was indicted for first-degree murder and subsequently convicted of manslaughter. The case was brought before the Florida Supreme Court v…
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 Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of manslaughter under an indictment charging murder in the first degree.
We have considered all questions and contentions presented by the plaintiff in error and find that each and all of them must be resolved against the plaintiff in error on au*689thority of the former opinions and judgments of this Court and that no useful purpose may he served by now writing an extended opinion dealing with questions which have been heretofore fully answered and definitely determined.
No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment should be and is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.