Case Name: Armando MAISONAVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1965-02-09
Citations: 171 So. 2d 443
Docket Number: No. 64-530
Parties: Armando MAISONAVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before TILLMAN PEARSON, HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 171
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
Armando MAISONAVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 64-530.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Feb. 9, 1965.
Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Patrick A. Podsaid, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and John H. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before TILLMAN PEARSON, HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellant brings for review the trial court's denial of his petition filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The main thrust of the appeal is that the trial court should have set the petition for a hearing on the merits rather than denying it upon an examination of the record.
It is established that the trial court need not conduct a hearing on the merits when the grounds of the petition are totally insufficient or are refuted by the record. State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892.
In the petition before us the grounds for relief alleged are as follows:
(1) That the appellant was subject to an inhuman attitude of the police;
(2) That the Office of the Public Defender did not forward to appellant a copy of the transcript of his trial.
There is no allegation, nor anything in the record, to suggest that the petition was deprived of the substance of a fair trial. See Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 506.
Affirmed.