History
  • No items yet
midpage
Lopetegui v. State
257 So. 2d 914
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1972
Check Treatment
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, Lopeti-gui 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. '

Case Details

Case Name: Lopetegui v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Jan 25, 1972
Citation: 257 So. 2d 914
Docket Number: No. 71-811
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.