Selmon v. State

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed under the authority of Dancy v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 208; Clark v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 773; Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 57; Duncan v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 161 So.2d 718; Taylor v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So.2d 402, and Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 887.

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.