McGriff v. State, 71--747
| Decision Date | 21 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71--747,71--747 |
| Citation | 259 So.2d 508 |
| Parties | Nelson Eddie McGRIFF, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bruce E. Telander, Miami, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joseph R. DeLucca, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order entered by the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County, Florida, denying defendant's motion for relief from his conviction of robbery, pursuant to Rule 3.850, CrPR, 33 F.S.A., formerly Rule 1.850. The court in its order held that the allegations of the motion for relief did not constitute legal grounds for granting a new trial or release of the defendant.
Related requests for post-conviction relief sought by the appellant are: McGriff v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 563 and McGriff v. Wainwright, 431 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1970).
We have carefully reviewed the record and briefs of counsel and have concluded that the court properly denied the defendant the relief sought. It appears that the matters raised in the motion, if proved, would not constitute legal grounds for collateral attack of the judgment and sentence. The matters complained of could or should have been raised on direct appeal. Peterson v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 223.
For the reasons stated the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCrae v. State
...So.2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Yanks v. State, 273 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 277 So.2d 288 (Fla.1973); McGriff v. State, 259 So.2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 263 So.2d 829 (Fla.1972); Austin v. State, 160 So.2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Therefore, a Rule 3.850 moti......
-
Demps v. State, 96-3439
......." Rule 1.850 is the predecessor to current rule 3.850. See Grayson v. Wainwright, 330 So.2d 461, 462-63 (Fla.1976); McGriff v. State, 259 So.2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). In Reynolds the supreme court disapproved this court's opinion in Hill v. State, 184 So.2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), whic......
-
Von Eberstein v. State, Q--202
...By its petition for rehearing, appellee has called our attention to Peterson v. State, 237 So.2d 223 (Fla.App.1970), and McGriff v. State, 259 So.2d 508 (Fla.App.1972), and asks that the issues herein be reconsidered in light of the principles adumbrated in those cases. Put simply, the case......
-
Gentry v. State, X-194
...by appellant have already been resolved adverse to his position in Williams v. State, Fla.App.1st 1972, 259 So.2d 753; McGriff v. State, Fla.App.3rd 1972, 259 So.2d 508 and State v. Barton, Sup.Ct.Fla.1967, 194 So.2d Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error the order appealed......