Court Opinion

ID: 7422384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 02:43:47.167001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:22:21.609552
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Affirmed under authority of Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 487; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 243; Carey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 603; Cole v. State. Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 698; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 34; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 675; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 667, and Ogilvie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 710.
We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.
ALLEN, C. J., and LILES and PIERCE, JJ-, concur.