DEWEY CROSBY, 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.
The appellate court reversed a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a felony conviction and sentence. The appellant argued his constitutional rights were violated due to lack of counsel at arraignment and plea. The appellate court found the trial court's conclusion that the appellant waived counsel was unsupported by the record.
Yes, the trial court erred in finding that the appellant waived his right to counsel. The appellate court found no support in the record for the trial court's conclusion.
“We have examined the record in this cause and find nothing therein to sustain the finding of the trial court.”
Establishes the appellate court's finding that the trial court's decision was not supported by the record.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDewey Crosby, an indigent, filed a motion to vacate his felony conviction and sentence, alleging he was not represented by counsel during his arraignm…
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 Motion To Vacate Judgment Of Conviction And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Pursuant to Criminal Procedure, Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, Dewey Crosby filed a motion to vacate judgment of conviction and sentence of a crime constituting a felony. He was subsequently adjudicated an insolvent by the trial court. One of the grounds for his motion to vacate was that his constitutional rights had been violated *868in that he had not been represented by counsel at the time of his arraignment, nor at the time he entered his plea of guilty. The trial court found from the record of the cause that Crosby had waived his right of counsel, if any, and denied the motion to vacate. We have examined the record in this cause and find nothing therein to sustain the finding of the trial court. Consequently, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions for further proceedings in accord with the opinion of this Court in Mullins v. State, Fla.App., 157 So.2d 701.
STURGIS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dykes v. State, 162 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…n court” on his claim that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. I would, therefore, reverse the order appealed from, and remand the cause, as we did in Mullins v. State, 157 So. 2d 701 (1963) and Crosby v. State, 157 So. 2d 867 (1963), with directions for further proceedings, “including a full opportunity to the defendant or a court-appointed counsel to present evidence in support of the allegations of the motion, particularly with reference to the critical issue of compet…
-
Arthur v. Sampson, 158 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…ial is proper. Absent one of these requisites, summary denial is improper and the provisions of the Rule for notice, hearing and determination of the issue must be followed. King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 440; Crosby v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 867. In the instant case there is no suggestion that the files and record preclude relief. The record on appeal contains a letter from which the State draws the implication that appellant was represented by counsel, but the letter was filed below after…
-
Reuel Lawson v. State, 231 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1970)…ial is proper. Absent one of these requisites, summary denial is improper and the provisions of the Rule for notice, hearing and determination of the issue must be followed. King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 440; Crosby v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 867.” See also, Stanley v. State, 203 So. 2d 31 (Fla.App.2d 1967); Florida’s Criminal Procedure Rule Number One by Sidney A. Stubbs, Jr., 17 Fla.Law Rev. 617 (1964— 1965). The motion under consideration was sufficient to notify the Court that defendan…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hilton Mullins v. State, 157 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)