History
  • No items yet
midpage
102 So. 3d 666
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2012
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Hughes v. State, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), review dismissed, 29 So.3d 291 (Fla.2010); Ward v. State, 946 So.2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Macaluso v. State, 912 So.2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Bizzell v. State, 912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Brown v. State, 827 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Ives v. State, 993 So.2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Clayton v. State, 904 So.2d 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Wright v. State, 834 So.2d 879 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Sampson v. State, 832 So.2d 251 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Middleton v. State, 721 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

SILBERMAN, C.J., and WHATLEY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Rooks v. State
Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Date Published: Jan 18, 2012
Citations: 102 So. 3d 666; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 431; 2012 WL 130629; No. 2D11-3510
Docket Number: No. 2D11-3510
Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified
and are not legal advice.
Log In