EARL FRANK HOFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Earl Frank Hoffman appeals an order denying his motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Appellant’s motion failed to allege that he was indigent and unable to employ counsel at the time he entered his plea. The motion therefore was legally insufficient. See Dias v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 766; Savage v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 566; Auflick v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 767; Duke v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 549.
The order appealed is therefore affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile his motion in accordance with the rule announced in Turner v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 11.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tillman v. State, 186 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…rsuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Appellant’s motion failed to allege that he was indigent and unable to employ counsel at the time he entered his plea. The motion was therefore legally insufficient. Hoffman v. State, 163 So. 2d 797 (D.C.A.Fla.1964), and cases cited therein. The order appealed is therefore affirmed without prejudice to appellant’s right to refile his motion. Affirmed. LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and PIERCE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Savage v. State, 156 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Dias v. State, 158 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Bell v. State, 161 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Auflick v. State, 158 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Duke v. State, 162 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)