JAMES THOMAS WOOTEN, 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision. The appellant's claims of being held incommunicado, denied a preliminary hearing, and inadequately represented by counsel were found to be without merit or insufficient to warrant a hearing.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the petition for post-conviction relief. The claims presented did not demonstrate harm or prejudice, nor did they allege sufficient facts to require a formal hearing.
“As to the ground of the motion that the appellant was held incommunicado for a period before taken before a magistrate, no harm or prejudice resulted.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for dismissing the claim of being held incommunicado.
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, James Thomas Wooten, was serving a sentence for robbery when he filed a petition for post-conviction relief. His petition alleged he wa…
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 Competent Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief filed under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. Ch. 924 Appendix, while serving a sentence imposed following a conviction for robbery in September of 1962.
The contentions in the motion were that (1) the appellant “was held 11 days incommunicado before taken before a magistrate,” (2) “was denied a preliminary hearing” and (3) was inadequately represented by counsel.
On our examination of the record on this matter we conclude that the able trial judge did not commit error in denying the motion. As to the ground of the motion that the appellant was held incommunicado for a period before taken before a magistrate, no harm or prejudice resulted. When arraigned, the defendant pleaded not guilty, and he was tried on that basis. See Milton v. Cochran, Fla. 1962, 147 So.2d 137. The same is true as to the ground of denial of preliminary hearing, which is not considered a critical step in the prosecution. See Baugus v. State, Fla. 1962, 141 So.2d 264, 267. Regarding the contention of ab*306sence of competent counsel, we agree with the trial judge that no allegations were contained in the motion on that feature such as to require formal hearing and evidence. The respects in which it is contended the attorney's representation was inadequate are stated as conclusions without allegation of any sufficient supporting facts. Wilkins v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 322, 258 F.2d 416; Jones v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 326, 258 F.2d 420.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)…nsel was of such a kind as to reduce the trial to a farce or a sham and to shock the conscience of the court.” United States v. Edwards, D.C., 152 F.Supp. 179, 185. . Wood v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 118 So. 2d 193. See also Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964,163 So. 2d 305. . Sec. 2255, Title 28 U.S.C.A. . Cases collected United States v. Wight, C.A.2, 176 F. 2d 376, 379. “For these reasons we think absence of effective representation by counsel must be strictly construed. It must mean representation so lacking in…
-
Brookins v. State, 174 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…epresented by counsel at the preliminary hearing is nothing more than a naked conclusion, without any supporting allegations of fact. Thus, it does not constitute a ground for vacating the conviction and sentence. See: Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305; Snow v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 557. Furthermore, in view of the fact that in the absence of a showing of prejudicial harm a preliminary hearing is not an essential step in a criminal proceeding [see: Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So. 2d…
-
Gibson v. State, 173 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…Bona v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 121 So. 2d 192. Thus, the denial of a preliminary hearing cannot deprive a defendant of due process of law and the substance of a fair trial. Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 38; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305. This is particularly true in the absence of a showing that prejudice to the appellant resulted from his failure to have a preliminary hearing. See Wooten v. State, supra. It is therefore the opinion of this court that all of the allegations contai…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Milton v. Cochran, 147 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1962)
- Wilkins v. United States, 258 F.2d 416 (D.C. Cir. 1958)
- Jones v. United States, 258 F.2d 420 (D.C. Cir. 1958)