W. J. QUILLIAN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 court held that an allegation of absence of counsel at trial, if not conclusively refuted by the record, requires a formal hearing.
Appellant, convicted of armed robbery, moved to vacate his sentence alleging indigence and denial of counsel at trial. The record showed multiple defe…
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 Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
W. J. Quillian, under life sentence for a 1933 armed robbery conviction, appeals an order denying without formal hearing his motion to vacate judgment and sentence, under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, which was predicated, among other grounds, on the allegation he was indigent and denied counsel at trial.
The record shows there were three defendants. One pleaded guilty. Quillian and the other pleaded not guilty, were tried and convicted. The record discloses there were two defense attorneys who took part in the trial. It can not he determined from the record whether either of the named attorneys actually represented the appellant.
The allegation of absence of counsel for the defendant is not conclusively refuted by the files and record of the case, and for that reason the matter should he heard on notice in the trial court. See Branch v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 528; Cami*2nata v. State, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 921, and cases cited therein.
Accordingly the order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings as provided for in Rule 1 and as indicated above.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 198 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…appealed that the minutes recite that Smith and his codefendants appeared in court accompanied by counsel. This we feel is not sufficient to show that this appellant was actually represented by counsel at the trial. The record in Quillian v. State, 163 So. 2d 1 (Fla.App.3d, 1964) showed that two defense attorneys participated in the trial of Quillian and another defendant. The record did not show that either of the attorneys actually represented Quillian, consequently the appellate court reversed the order…
-
Gentry v. State, 186 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…el that a hearing is mandatory to determine whether this appellant did have the necessary representation which must be furnished to meet the requirements established in the Gideon case. A hearing was likewise ordered in Quillian v. State of Florida, 163 So. 2d 1 (Fla.App.3d, 1964) where the court record showed two defense attorneys participated in the trial of Quillian and a co-defendant but did not show whether either attorney in fact represented Quillian. Therefore, we must reverse and remand this cause…
Authorities Cited
- Caminita v. State, 159 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Branch v. State, 162 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)