Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Tony Giamo v. E. Wilson Purdy, as Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, 72-1990 (1972)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 72-1990 Visitors: 19
Filed: Sep. 07, 1972
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 465 F.2d 994 Tony GIAMO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E. Wilson PURDY, as Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, Respondent-Appellee. No. 72-1990 Summary Calendar. * United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Aug. 15, 1972. Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1972. Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, Fla., for petitioner-appellant. Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellee. Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 This appeal is ta
More

465 F.2d 994

Tony GIAMO, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
E. Wilson PURDY, as Sheriff of Dade County, Florida,
Respondent-Appellee.

No. 72-1990 Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 15, 1972.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1972.

Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

This appeal is taken from the district court's order of dismissal of Giamo's petition for habeas corpus attacking a five year sentence imposed by the Florida courts after a jury verdict of guilty for the crime of bribery. The opinionorder of the trial court is reported as Giamo v. Purdy, S.D.Fla.1972, 346 F. Supp. 1.

2

The petitioner-appellant has failed to demonstrate error in the trial court's disposition of the two grounds of attack upon the state court conviction: (1) the introduction of proof of similar acts to the crime charged, prior and subsequent to the date of the crime charged, resulting in his not being convicted of a specific crime and thereby deprived of due process of law; and (2) comments by the state prosecutor in his closing argument to the jury alleged to be so prejudicial as to deprive the petitioner of a fair trial.

The judgment appealed from is

3

Affirmed.

*

Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer