Opinion · District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gardner v. State

Gardner v. State, 214 So. 2d 786 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

Type
Opinion
Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Jurisdiction
Florida
Date
1968-09-25
Topic
litigation

PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals from a denial of his Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence by the trial court. Appellant urges as his point on appeal that he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel by the trial court’s appointment of a single attorney to jointly represent the appellant and a co-defendant. The record shows that appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of robbery and there was no trial. In a recent opinion Williams v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gardner v. State. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
GARDNER v. STATE,214 So.2d 786(Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1968)
JOHNNY M. GARDNER, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.
No. 68-124.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
September 25, 1968.
Rehearing Denied November 8, 1968.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough County, Carl C. Durrance, J.
Joseph G. Spicola, Jr., Public Defender, and Richard C. Edwards, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from a denial of his Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment and Sentence by the trial court. Appellant urges as his point on appeal that he was deprived of his constitutional right to counsel by the trial court's appointment of a single attorney to jointly represent the appellant and a co-defendant.

The record shows that appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of robbery and there was no trial. In a recent opinion Williams v. State of Florida,214 So.2d 29, filed September 4, 1967, we affirmed a decision of the lower court based on a similar set of facts. Based upon that authority, we therefore affirm the decision of the trial court in this case.

Affirmed.

LILES, C.J., and ALLEN and HOBSON, JJ., concur.Page 787