FRANK GRAHAM, A/K/A FRANK VALONE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Frank Graham appealed his conviction and sentence in a bench trial, arguing that the trial court erred by proceeding to trial on the same day as arraignment, failing to inform him of his right to counsel, and that the conviction was unsupported by evidence. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion and no deprivation of constitutional rights.
The court affirmed the conviction on all grounds. There is no fixed rule of law requiring a specific time period between arraignment and trial; such matters are left to trial court discretion governed by fairness and reasonableness. The failure to advise of the right to counsel does not constitute error or deprive the accused of any secured right. The evidence was sufficient to establish guilt.
“There is no rule of law governing the time which must elapse between the arraignment on an indictment or information and the beginning of the trial thereon. This has been left to the discretion of the trial court to be governed by what is fair and reasonable in each particular case.”
Establishes that trial courts have discretion in scheduling trials relative to arraignment, subject only to fairness and reasonableness standards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraham was arraigned and tried on the same day in a bench trial in Dade County Criminal Court of Record after waiving his jury trial right. Although G…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretion Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a conviction and sentence in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, and urges as grounds for reversal of adjudication of guilt [the case having been heard by the court after the appellant waived a jury trial] that the trial court erred in proceeding with the trial on the same day as he was arraigned; that the trial court erred in proceeding to trial without informing him of his right to counsel, and that the adjudication of guilt was contrary to the evidence.
There is no rule of law governing the time which must elapse between the arraignment on an indictment or information and the beginning of the trial thereon. This has been left to the discretion of the trial court to be governed by what is fair and reasonable in each particular case. In the case sub judice, the record on appeal fails to demonstrate any abuse of discretion of the trial judge in proceeding with the trial of the cause on the same day as the arraignment. Reed v. State, 94 Fla. 32, 113 So. 630; Hysler v. State, 132 Fla. 209, 181 So. 354. Although the appellant didn’t have counsel at the time of trial, it is apparent in the record that the appellant had engaged counsel prior thereto and, in fact, had counsel present at the time of adjudication of guilt upon which the sentence was rendered, which is the subject matter of this cause. The record shows that the original adjudication of guilt was subsequently set aside. The appellant, with counsel present, was later adjudged guilty and sentenced, resulting in this appeal. Furthermore, the mere failure of the trial judge to advise the appellant of his right to counsel does not show a deprivation of any right secured to the accused by law, nor does this omission alone show harmful or erroneous procedure. Weatherford v. State, 76 Fla. 219, 79 So. 680. As to the third point, the .evidence in the record was more than sufficient to establish the guilt and conviction of the appellant for com*568mitting the charge in the information. Sealey v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 894; Zalla v. State, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 649.
Therefore, the judgment and sentence is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Andrews v. State, 372 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…defendant a fair trial is supported by the record. The testimony of the witness was cumulative. The decision of the trial judge not to grant a continuance will be reversed only when a clear abuse of discretion is made to appear. See Graham v. State, 143 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). No abuse of discretion appears in the ruling of the trial judge. Cf. Miranda v. State, 237 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). Having considered the points presented and finding no prejudicial error, the judgment and sentence are aff…
Authorities Cited
- Davenport v. State, 94 Fla. 32 (Fla. 1927)
- Hysler v. State, 132 Fla. 209 (Fla. 1938)
- Zalla v. State, 61 So.2d 649 (Fla. 1952)
- Weatherford v. State, 76 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1918)