Opinion · Florida Court Opinions

LOPETEGUI v. STATE, 257 So.2d 914 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1972)

BIENVENIDO LOPETEGUI, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF Fla., APPELLEE., 257 So. 2d 914 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Type
Opinion
Court
Florida Court Opinions
Jurisdiction
Florida
Date
1972-01-25
Topic
general

LOPETEGUI v. STATE, 257 So.2d 914 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1972) BIENVENIDO LOPETEGUI, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. No. 71-811.District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. January 25, 1972.Rehearing Denied March 8, 1972.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed LOPETEGUI v. STATE, 257 So.2d 914 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1972). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

LOPETEGUI v. STATE,257 So.2d 914(Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1972)
BIENVENIDO LOPETEGUI, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.
No. 71-811.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
January 25, 1972.
Rehearing Denied March 8, 1972.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Record, Dade County, Murray Goodman, J.Page 915
Donald F. Frost, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal from a summary denial of a motion filed pursuant to CrPR 3.850 is affirmed upon authority of the rule that a motion pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A., may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Peterson v. State, Fla.App. 1970,237 So.2d 223.

In the instant case the appellant has had a full appeal from his conviction, Lopetigui v. State, Fla.App. 1970,232 So.2d 399, and now seeks to challenge the procedural aspects of the cause again by motion. The motion was appropriately denied without evidentiary hearing by the trial judge.

Affirmed.