Holzapfel v. State , 1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6728 ( 1971 )

PER CURIAM.

On the basis of our review of the briefs and the record on appeal, we are of the opinion that the appellant has .failed to demonstrate reversible error. The final order from which this appeal is taken is, therefore, affirmed. See Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 475; Hield v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 235; McMann v. Richardson, 1970, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763; Maxwell v. State, Mo.1970, 459 S.W.2d 388; Busby v. Holman, 5 Cir.1966, 356 F.2d 75; State v. McInnes, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 581; Mann v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So.2d 472; Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1971, 245 So.2d 642; Cauley v. United States, 5 Cir.1966, 355 F.2d 175; Ball v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 523; Manning v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 360; Moore v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1968, 401 F.2d 525; Boone v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 869; McGriff v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1970, 431 F.2d 897; and Forbes v. Wainwright, D.C.M.D.Fla.1970, 312 F.Supp. 465; Nichols v. Wainwright, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 430.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and MAGER, JJ., concur.