OLIVER LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reversible Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Oliver Lee, pro se, appeals from a conviction based on a jury verdict on the charge of robbery.
Appellant contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.
We have considered appellant’s contentions in light of the record on appeal and the briefs and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear. See: Luster v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 910; Cf., State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89, 3 So.2d 721. We have reached our decision without considering the merits of an affidavit of another prisoner, George Hagin, which purports to absolve appellant of complicity in the commission of the crime for which he was convicted. That information was not considered since it is not properly before us in this appeal. This is not to say that it cannot be brought to the attention of the trial court in an appropriate proceeding.
Therefore, for the reasons stated the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coffin v. Coffin, 368 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…ever, has been interpreted to apply only to those situ [*107] ations involving alimony for support and maintenance. It does not apply to purely property settlement agreements. Mills v. Mills, 339 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Schulman v. Schulman, 273 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The main issue then is whether or not the trial judge could determine the nature of the agreement on a motion for summary judgment. Use of the word “alimony” is not conclusive, and the court must look to the substance of the agr…
-
Isadore Yagoda v. Klein, 293 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 281; Fort v. Fort, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 313; Salomon v. Salomon, Fla.1967, 196 So. 2d 111; Howell v. Howell, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 231; McKenna v. McKenna, Fla.App. 1969, 220 So. 2d 433. Cf. Schulman v. Schulman, Fla.App.1973, 273 So. 2d 403.…
-
Pemberton v. Pemberton, 292 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Section 61.14, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; Schulman v. Schulman, Fla.App.3rd, 1973, 273 So. 2d 403. McNULTY, A. C. J., and BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Sears, 148 Fla. 89 (Fla. 1941)
- Luster v. State, 262 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Williams v. State, 148 Fla. 87 (Fla. 1941)