Putnal v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
1Opinion of the Court
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant Spessard Putnal appeals his conviction of filing a fraudulent claim for per diem and traveling expenses. We agree there was error in the trial court, but find it was harmless error, so we affirm.
In early 1982, the State began an investigation into alleged corruption in the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP). As a part of this investigation, appellant, a FHP corporal, was subpoenaed for a deposition on September 28, 1982. Because appellant’s attorney had a schedule conflict, it was agreed that the deposition would take place on September 29th instead.
On September 29,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Odom v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1981
- Urga v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1963
- Jenny v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
- McCoy v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1976
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Meek v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
- Meek v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1994