
    Samie ROYSTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 64-11.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    May 19, 1964.
    Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and W. Eugene Neill, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    James W. ICynes, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Victor V. Andreensky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The burden of appellant’s petition for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix in the trial court was that his self-employed counsel was inadequate. Pie appeals from a denial of his petition.

Appellant presents nothing more than his conclusion that the counsel he employed was inadequate. Nothing short of a retrial of the case would satisfy such an allegation and we do not so construe the office of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. Everett v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 714 [opinion filed March 17, 1964],  