Court Opinion

ID: 7421515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 02:42:45.956238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:22:20.856216
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Affirmed under the authority of Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 328; Linton v. Cox, 358 F.2d 859 (10th Cir. 1966); and Hamrick v. Boles, 231 F.Supp. 507 (N.D.W.Va.1964). Cf. Mason v. United States, 303 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1962).
*917We 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 SHANNON and LILES, JJ., concur.