EMORY GEORGE TYNES, 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.
Emory Tynes appealed the denial of his post-conviction petition alleging he was tried without counsel. The court reversed, holding that his allegation of being tried without counsel and being unable to hire one stated a sufficient claim under Gideon v. Wainwright and required a full hearing rather than summary denial.
The court held that Tynes's allegation that he was tried without counsel and was unable to hire one stated a sufficient claim under Gideon, and such ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the prisoner. Summary denial was improper; the trial court was required to hold a hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
“We recognize that an allegation of in-digency in Rule 1 petition is essential if it is to state a prima facie case under the Gideon decision, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799.”
Establishes the requirement that indigency must be alleged in a Rule 1 petition under Gideon
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTynes was charged with armed robbery and attempted armed robbery in November and December 1950. He was adjudged guilty of armed robbery and pleaded gu…
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 Petition For Post Conviction Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order denying the appellant’s petition for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The record reveals that on November 24 and December 19, 1950, informations were filed in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County charging the appellant with armed robbery and attempted armed robbery. Subsequently, the appellant was adjudged guilty of the armed robbery charge, pleaded guilty to the attempted armed robbery charge, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a *20term of five years and a term of one year, respectively.
On June 25, 1963, the appellant filed a petition for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 in which he alleged: “I was tried in this court without the aid of a counsellor and at present was unable to hire one.” By order dated September 23, 1963, the trial court denied the appellant’s petition.
We note at this point that the record is silent as to whether or not the appellant was represented by counsel.
The single issue presented by this appeal is whether, under the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court erred in summarily denying the appellant’s petition.
The state contends that the petition contains no allegations to the effect that appellant was indigent at the time of trial or that he was unable to pay for counsel. Consequently, not having set forth legally sufficient grounds for collateral attack, summary denial of the petition was proper. The state relies on the cases of Beeson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 669; King v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 157 So.2d 440; and Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 566, as authority for affirming the order appealed.
We recognize that an allegation of in-digency in Rule 1 petition is essential if it is to state a prima facie case under the Gideon decision, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799. Savage v. State, supra. The question then becomes whether the appellant’s allegation that “I was tried in this court without the aid of a counsellor and at present was unable to hire one ” avers that at the time of trial he was indigent. We are loath to interpret this allegation against the appellant. On the contrary, such an ambiguity should be resolved in his favor. See Roy v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 825, 828, and Ashley v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 530. Under Rule 1, unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, the trial court should cause notice to be served on the prosecuting’ attorney of the court, grant a prompt hearing, determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Branch v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 528 and Caminata v. State, Fla. App.1964, 159 So.2d 921, and cases cited therein.
Accordingly, the matter should be set down and the provisions of the rule complied with in respect to a subsequent hearing.
Reversed with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 163 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…’s self-drawn motion was in the alternative or conjunctive, but pursuant to Roy v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 151 So. 2d 825, we resolve all doubts in movant’s favor, and find that the motion was in the alternative. See also Tynes v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 19, (opinion filed April 14, 1964); Ashley v. State, Fla. App.1963, 158 So. 2d 530. . Sampson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 771. . State v. Weeks, Fla.1964,-So. 2d-, (opinion filed March 4, 1964) ; Blake v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 20, (o…
Authorities Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Jetson ROY v. Louie L. Wainwright, 151 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1963)
- Savage v. State, 156 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Baxter McLendon Ashley v. State, 158 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Caminita v. State, 159 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Branch v. State, 162 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Beeson v. State ex rel. L. L. Wainwright, 159 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)