Case Name: STATE of Florida ex rel. Charles Franklin GIBSON, Appellant, v. E. Wilson PURDY, as Director of the Public Safety Department of Dade County, Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1969-02-11
Citations: 218 So. 2d 542
Docket Number: No. 68-256
Parties: STATE of Florida ex rel. Charles Franklin GIBSON, Appellant, v. E. Wilson PURDY, as Director of the Public Safety Department of Dade County, Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 218
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
STATE of Florida ex rel. Charles Franklin GIBSON, Appellant, v. E. Wilson PURDY, as Director of the Public Safety Department of Dade County, Florida, Appellee.
No. 68-256.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Feb. 11, 1969.
Strauss & McCormick, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State Atty., and Roy S. Wood, Asst. State Atty., for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The Notice of Appeal herein seeks appellate review of an order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, which denied the petition of Gibson for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and also an order of the Criminal Court of Record, which denied his motion for relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.Pr. 1.850, 33 F.S.A.
The Notice of Appeal filed in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida in the Habeas Corpus proceeding is ineffective to bring before this court an order of the Criminal Court of Record, denying a motion pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.Pr. 1.850. We consider, therefore, only the review of the Habeas Corpus proceeding.
The appellant has failed to include his petition for Habeas Corpus, filed in the Circuit Court, in the record on appeal. He has not brought us a sufficient record on appeal to demonstrate reversible error committed by the trial court. It is the duty of the appellant to provide the appeals court with a sufficient record to demonstrate reversible error. Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 294.
Assuming arguendo that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a sufficient record were properly before us, this matter should be affirmed. See Clark v. State, ex rel. Rubin, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 807; State, ex rel. Gerstein v. Schulz, Fla.App. 1965, 180 So.2d 367; Hitson v. Mayo, Fla. 1957, 99 So.2d 297. The order herein appealed be and the same is, therefore,
Affirmed.