Gardner v. State (263 So. 2d 604, 1972)

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the briefs and record filed in this appeal. We conclude that the requirements of Ch. 932.38, F.S.1969, now Ch. 925.07, F.S.1970, F.S.A. and of Snell v. Mayo, Fla.1956, 84 So.2d 581, were complied with, in that actual timely notice was received by defendant’s grandmother-guardian. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.