Opinion · Florida Court Opinions

McCARTHY v. STATE, 177 So.2d 63 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1965)

177 So.2d 63

Type
Opinion
Court
Florida Court Opinions
Jurisdiction
Florida
Date
1965-06-29
Topic
general

McCARTHY v. STATE, 177 So.2d 63 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1965) CHARLES W. McCARTHY, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE. No. 64-899.District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed McCARTHY v. STATE, 177 So.2d 63 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1965). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

McCARTHY v. STATE,177 So.2d 63(Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1965)
CHARLES W. McCARTHY, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE.
No. 64-899.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 29, 1965.
Appeal from Circuit Court for Dade County; Thomas E. Lee, Jr., Judge.
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Phillip A. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James T. Carlisle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The trial court properly denied appellant's motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, where the record shows testimony was taken after defendant's guilty plea, and defendant now contends in his motion that the court failed to take testimony to determine the degree of the crime charged pursuant to § 909.11 Fla. Stat., F.S.A. See: Sampson v. State, Fla.App. 1963,158 So.2d 771.

Affirmed.