JOYCE DEBRA GAMSBY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
By this appeal, appellant challenges the judgment of conviction, pursuant to a nolo contendere plea, of the offenses of possession of narcotic paraphernalia and possession of an hallucinogenic drug.
*822The Public Defender has filed a brief in this cause in which he concludes that he can find no assignable error in the trial proceedings. Appellant was afforded the opportunity to file a brief in her own behalf, which she has now done.
We have reviewed the entire record in this cause and conclude that the nolo con-tendere plea was properly accepted by the trial court and that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error in the proceedings below.
The judgment appealed is therefore affirmed.
SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Exxon Co. v. Alexis, 370 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1978)…rty was prejudiced thereby. Considerable latitude and discretion is afforded the trial judge in these matters. See Eli Witt Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Matatics, 55 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1951); Akins v. Taylor, 314 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); King v. State, 272 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Similar discretion reposes with the Judge of Industrial Claims. In the case before us, we are not persuaded that the Industrial Relations Commission erred in failing to find that petitioner was prejudiced by the reopening of clai…
-
Dees v. State, 357 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…ecision of the trial judge allowing a party to reopen its case will not be reversed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. See e. g., Pitts v. State, 185 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1966); Kimmons v. State, 178 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1 DCA 1965); King v. State, 272 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 3 DCA 1973). Under the facts of this case, we hold that an abuse of discretion has not been demonstrated. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED. McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and SMITH, JJ., concur.…