FRANCIS BROWN, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, holding that the prisoner's claims of mental exhaustion and potential self-defense did not render the judgment void or subject to collateral attack.
No, the allegations were not sufficient to render the judgment and sentence void or subject to collateral attack. Such claims involve errors of law or fact that could have been raised on direct appeal, rather than fundamental defects making the judgment vulnerable.
“The court denied the relief sought without a hearing, finding that the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.”
Describes the lower court's action on the motion for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Francis Brown, was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a motion for post-conviction relief, a…
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 Void Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
While represented by counsel, this appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree with a recommendation for mercy and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought relief from the conviction pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The court denied the relief sought without a hearing, finding that the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. The motion did not allege any facts from which it could be found that “ * * * the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction, or that the sentence imposed was not authorized by law or otherwise open to collateral attack, or that there has been such a denial or infringement of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the *35judgment vulnerable to collateral attack * * Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, paragraph 3. The allegations to the effect that, due to worry, excitement, intimidation, fatigue and mental exhaustion the prisoner was not capable of properly aiding his counsel in the preparation of his defense, and that he could have proved self-defense, are nothing more than allegations involving errors either of law or fact which might have been raised on appeal, but which, even if taken as true, do not render the judgment and sentence void or otherwise subject to collateral attack under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. See Austin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So.2d 730.
The order denying relief is therefore affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 172 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…course of action. The record does not even support this in [*246] ference. The contention that this was a coerced plea of guilty cannot be sustained. Other questions raised by the appellant do not merit discussion. See Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 34; Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 529; and Everett v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 714. Affirmed. SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.…
-
Rankin v. State, 197 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…URIAM. Affirmed under authority of Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 487; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 243; Carey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 603; Cole v. State. Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 698; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 34; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 675; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 667, and Ogilvie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 710. We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 176 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ons of the petition are untrue and are frivolous.” Our inspection of the record leads us to the conclusion that the trial judge did not commit error in ruling that the allegations of the petition were insufficient. See Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 34; Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 887. The action taken by the defendant-at trial was with advice of counsel. The three co-defendants, all of whom had advice of the same attorney, also changed their pleas from not guilty to guilty at the…
Authorities Cited
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)