WILLIAM MARTI, 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.
William Marti appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1, challenging his 1961 narcotics conviction. The court affirmed the denial, holding that Marti failed to demonstrate that the alleged errors—including an allegedly illegal arrest and delayed appearance before a magistrate—deprived him of a fair trial, which is the legal standard for collateral attack.
Marti was not entitled to post-conviction relief because he failed to demonstrate that any of the alleged errors deprived him of the substance of a fair trial, which is the test for granting relief under Rule 1. The court held that allegations regarding the legality of arrest, detention, and delay in trial cannot support a collateral attack on a judgment of conviction absent a showing of harm affecting trial fairness.
“the test for granting relief under Rule 1, is whether or not the appellant was deprived of the substance of a fair trial”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for post-conviction relief, requiring deprivation of a fair trial rather than merely showing any alleged error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarti was convicted of violating the Florida Uniform Narcotics Act on October 19, 1961, and sentenced to four years and eight months. He was represent…
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 appellant’s petition for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The appellant’s petition was directed to the judgment and sentence entered against him on October 19, 1961, sentencing him to a term of four years and eight months for violation of the Florida Uniform Narcotics Act. Appellant’s petition, consisting of some fourteen pages, alleged, in the main, that (1) he was arrested without a warrant and that after his arrest he was not immediately taken before a magistrate; (2) at the time of his arrest he was “not advised as to his detaintion [sic], no charge being made against him or any bond set;” (3) he was the victim of an “illegal arrest and confinement;” and (4) he was not granted a speedy trial.
On October 8, 1963, the trial court entered an order denying the petition for relief. The order found, inter alia, that the appellant was represented by the public defender of Dade County at arraignment, trial and sentencing, and that the allegations contained in the petition did not set forth grounds upon which relief could legally be granted.
Appellant contends that based upon the aforementioned allegations he was entitled to an order invalidating and setting aside his judgment of conviction. With this contention we cannot agree.
While any alleged error may be posed for decision on a direct appeal to an appellate court, the test for granting relief under Rule 1, is whether or not the appellant was deprived of the substance of a fair trial. Cf. Glouser v. United States, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 853, cert. den. 369 U.S. 825, 82 S.Ct. 840, 7 L.Ed.2d 789. The trial court’s order, in effect, found that none of the errors complained of amounted to violations of due process of law and none of them were of the character that would support a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction. The appellant’s allegation that he was not taken before a magistrate without unnecessary delay provides no basis for relief under Rule 1 since he failed to show any harm resulting from such alleged unnecessary delay that would have deprived him of a fair trial. See Milton v. Cochrane, Fla.1963, 147 So.2d 137. Likewise, appellant’s allegations relating to the legality of his arrest and detention, and the length of time before he went to trial, failed to show in what manner these allegations, even if true, would have deprived him of a fair trial. See Duncan v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 718 [opinion filed March 17, 1964], Further, the federal courts have repeatedly held that these questions cannot be raised in a proceeding for vacation of sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (the model for Criminal Procedure Rule 1). See Roddy v. United States, (10th Cir.) 296 F.2d 9; United States v. Shields, (6th Cir.) 291 F.2d 798, cert. den. 368 U.S. 933, 82 S.Ct. 371, 7 L.Ed.2d 196; Way v. United States, 200 F.Supp. 539 (D.C.Col.).
It should be noted that the record reveals that the appellant was represented by counsel throughout all stages of his trial upon *508the criminal charge of which he was found guilty.
Inasmuch as appellant has failed to allege valid legal grounds for collateral attack on the judgment and sentence imposed below, it follows that the order appealed must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Reddick v. State, 190 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…erion of whether collateral attack is permissible is not, as a general rule, whether • a specific constitutional guaranty was violated, but whether the defendant, on the ■whole record, was denied a fair trial.4 Thus in Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 506, it was held: “While any alleged error may be posed for decision on a direct appeal to an appellate court, the test for granting relief under Rule 1, is whether or not the appellant was deprived of the substance of a fair trial. Cf. Glouser v. Unit…1 / 2
-
Brookins v. State, 174 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ellant has failed to show in what manner the alleged illegality of his arrest deprived him of a fair trial. Thus, the allegation is insufficient to sustain a [*580] collateral attack on the conviction and sentence. See: Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 506; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 585. Lastly, the failure of counsel to call witnesses on behalf of the defense is a matter of personal judgment exercised by defense counsel and is not a ground for collateral attack. See: Simpson v. State…
-
Gibson v. State, 173 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…settled in Florida that a trial court may summarily deny a Rule One petition without a full evidentiary hearing when the allegations in the petition, even if true, fail to constitute valid grounds for collateral attack. Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 506; Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 566. It is also well established that allegations conclusively refuted by the files and records in a case do not constitute valid grounds for collateral attack. Sampson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 7…
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
- Milton v. Cochran, 147 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1962)
- Glouser v. United States, 296 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1961)
- Roddy v. United States, 296 F.2d 9 (10th Cir. 1961)
- United States v. Shields, 291 F.2d 798 (6th Cir. 1961)
- Duncan v. State, 161 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Seidenbach's v. Bland Terry Shoe Corp., 368 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1961)
- Szopenske v. Hand, 368 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1961)
- Campbell v. United States, 369 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1962)
- Roberts v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 369 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1962)