ELDON E. MILLS, 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 lower court's summary denial of a motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, finding that the denial was based on facts outside the record. The court also rejected the state's argument that the motion was procedurally barred due to a lack of explicit waiver of counsel allegations.
The court held that the summary denial of the motion for relief was improper because it relied on facts outside the record. The court also held that the motion was not precluded by the absence of an express allegation of non-waiver of counsel, as the allegations made implied non-waiver.
“The order here appealed, summarily denying motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, is predicated on findings of fact as to matters outside the record and must be reversed.”
Establishes the primary reason for reversal: the lower court's decision was based on external facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. The lower court summarily denied this motion. The denial was based on fin…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
The order here appealed, summarily denying motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, is predicated on findings of fact as to matters outside the record and must be reversed. Caminita v. State, Fla. *522App.1964, 159 So.2d 921. The contention, made on appeal, that the absence of an express allegation that the right to counsel was not waived is preclusive of relief cannot, in view of the clear implication of non-waiver in the allegations made, be sustained. Sampson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 771.
Upon remand of the cause the lower court should proceed to a prompt disposition of the motion, including any amendments heretofore made or hereinafter timely filed, and should, if appropriate to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation of appellant’s claim, afford appellant the services of appointed counsel in such further proceedings as are necessary. State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, - So.2d-, reversing Fla.App., 156 So.2d 36.
Reversed and remanded.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Arthur v. Sampson, 158 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Caminita v. State, 159 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Weeks v. State, 156 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)