FRANK SAMS, 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 Sams appealed the denial of his petition to vacate a 1959 guilty plea conviction for indecent assault, claiming he was denied the right to counsel. The court reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly denied the petition summarily without a hearing, despite allegations that raised colorable constitutional claims under Gideon v. Wainwright.
A trial court may not summarily deny a Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 petition without a hearing unless the motion and case record conclusively show the prisoner is entitled to no relief. The petition must receive a hearing because the allegations, while unsophisticated, raised colorable claims requiring factual development.
“motions filed under Criminal Procedure Ride No. 1 may not be denied without a hearing unless an examination of the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief”
Establishes the standard that Rule 1 petitions cannot be summarily denied; a hearing is required unless the record conclusively negates relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1959, Sams pleaded guilty to indecent assault and was sentenced. In April 1963, he filed a petition to vacate, alleging he was denied appointed cou…
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 Summary Denial Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Frank Sams appeals ah order denying his petition to vacate judgment and sentence. The record here shows that in 1959 Sams was arraigned and entered a plea of guilty to the charged crime of indecent assault, whereupon he was adjudged guilty and sentenced. In April of 1963, Sams filed his petition for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Said petition, which was sworn to before a notary public, alleged (in what might be termed the average layman’s allegations, mixing facts and conclusions) that he was then in prison pursuant to the aforementioned judgment and sentence, which was imposed illegally without due process of law, in that he was denied benefit of legal counsel; that he was entitled to have the judgment and sentence vacated under the authority of Gideon v. Wainwright;1 and that at the time of his arraignment, entry of the plea of guilty, rendition of the judgment and imposition of the sentence, he had no funds for legal counsel and none was appointed by the court. The record does not disclose any advice to the defendant with regard to his constitutional right to counsel; nor does it disclose any offer by the court to appoint counsel to represent the defendant.
The trial court denied Sams’ petition to vacate judgment and sentence, stating:
“* *. * [I]t appearing to the Court that the Petition filed is unsupported by verification and fails to set forth a factual basis to support the relief sought, that a request was not ■' made by Petitioner at or before the-: time of arraignment for appointment of counsel and such appointment -was-not denied by this Court, that at the-: time Petitioner appeared before '■t-hé-'' Court the Court found that Petitioner'-:had sufficient intelligence to comprehend the nature of the case against---him its seriousness and the consequences of a plea of guilty, that in as. much as Petitioner’s case was disposed!' of on a plea of guilty the case referred! to, Gideon vs. Wainwright, • is inapplicable to his case. * * * ”
We have previously said that motions filed under Criminal Procedure Ride No. 1 may not be denied without a hearing unless an examination of the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. King v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 157 So.2d 440. Neither the findings of the court below nor the record justifies the summary denial of Sams’ petition.
The order denying relief is reversed with-, directions for further proceedings in accordance with the directions given in King-v. State, supra, and Keur v. State, Fla.App.. 1963, 160 So.2d 546.
Reversed.
SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mason v. State, 176 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1965)…to inform the accused of his right to have counsel and the availability of a state-supplied lawyer, if he is unable to provide his own. King v. State, Fla.App., 157 So. 2d 440; Beadles v. State, Fla.App., 162 So. 2d 4; Sams v. [*80] State, Fla.App., 163 So. 2d 10; Stewart v. State, Fla.App. 163 So. 2d 527; Phillips v. State, Fla.App. 164 So. 2d 858; Holmes v. State, Fla.App., 165 So. 2d 433; Archer v. State, Fla.App., 166 So. 2d 163; Carver v. State, Fla.App., 171 So. 2d 898. See also the opinion of the Thir…
-
Dortch v. State, 165 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…ejudice is presumed to have resulted upon a plea of guilty without benefit of ■counsel to the same extent as if the defendant had been tried without benefit of •counsel. Rice v. Olson, 324 U.S. 786, 65 S.Ct. 989, 89 L.Ed. 1367 (1945); Sams v. State, 163 So. 2d 10 (Fla.App.1964). We feel obliged to observe that this case provides a striking example of an incon-gruous situation developed by the flood of reviews brought on by the decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, whi…
-
Carver v. State, 171 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…2d 858; Devanney v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 265. In these circumstances prejudice is presumed to have resulted on the plea of guilty without benefit of counsel. Dortch v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 409, 411; Sams v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 10; King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 440. The petitioner here, as defendant, was faced with accepting appointed counsel and being tried for first degree murder, a capital offense, or alternatively pleading guilty to second degree murder with as…
Authorities Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Keur v. State, 160 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)