Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 14, 1964No. 5116PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.'

By motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix filed in the lower court and by appeal from denial of that motion, appellant seeks relief upon grounds which indicate an attempt to employ Rule No. 1 as a substitute for timely appeal. The decisions in this State and analogous Federal authority are, with a single exception, not here significant, unanimous in denying relief under these circumstances. Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is not a substitute for appeal. Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730.

Affirmed.

SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and ANDREWS, JJ.,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Austin v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1964

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Crusoe v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  2. Suarez v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
  3. Wilcox v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1965
  4. Bretti v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1970
  5. Parks v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1971

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API