MACK BUSTER MCCORMICK, 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.
McCormick appeals the denial of his motion for relief from a life sentence imposed as a fourth felony offender, claiming the three prior convictions were unconstitutional because he lacked counsel at those trials. The court affirms the denial but clarifies that Criminal Rule 1 is not the proper vehicle for collateral attack on sentencing, though other common law remedies like habeas corpus remain available.
Criminal Rule 1 is not available to collaterally attack a sentence unless the movant is in custody under the sentence being attacked. The court affirmed the denial of relief but without prejudice to McCormick's right to seek relief through other available legal remedies, such as habeas corpus or coram nobis.
“Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, is not available to collaterally attack the sentence of the court unless the movant is in custody under the sentence attacked.”
Establishes the fundamental limitation on the scope of Criminal Rule 1 for challenging sentences.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCormick was sentenced to life imprisonment upon being found a fourth felony offender under Florida law. He filed a motion for relief claiming that t…
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 Coram Nobis cases and more on FLexlaw
Mack Buster McCormick appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The lower court denied movant’s request for relief without affording him a hearing, thereby implying *558that movant’s allegation did not entitle him to relief as a matter of law.
Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for the rest of his natural life upon his having been found to have been previously convicted of four felonies.1 By this motion, Mack Buster McCormick claims that he was illegally punished under this section of the law, in that, the three previous convictions, upon which the sentence was based, were unconstitutionally obtained by reason of the fact that he was not represented by counsel at any of those trials.
The trial judge, in his order, found that appellant had been represented by counsel at the proceeding which resulted in the fourth conviction. This is true, but the judge did not inquire into the other allegations of lack of counsel, thereby implying that as a matter of law, they could not be considered.
Appellant contends that inasmuch as, his three prior convictions were illegally obtained, there is no basis for sentencing him to life imprisonment as a fourth offender.
On the other hand, appellee argues that appellant can no longer contest the validity of those three prior convictions because they have already been satisfied and no longer have legal vitality.
We must agree with appellee’s contention that Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, is not available to collaterally attack the sentence of the court unless the movant is in custody under the sentence attacked.2
Although Criminal Rule 1 is rather broad in its scope, it has neither superseded nor abolished the common law writs of habeas corpus and coram nobis.3
Accordingly the order appealed is affirmed without prejudice to his right to seek such other relief as the law affords.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Hulan Grant v. State, 166 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…ederal Rules has been construed so as to permit a motion in the nature of coram nobis in criminal cases. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954). A similar decision is implied in McCormick v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 557. But see Pynes v. State, Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 277.…
-
State v. Ellis Dixon, 193 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…” and “released” have a direct causal connection. Other insurmountable barriers to relief of Dixon under Rule 1 are found in the extensive case law on the subject, such as Johnson v. State, Fla.1966, 184 So. 2d 161; McCormick v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 557; and Palmer v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 625. And the writ of error coram nobis would be equally unavailing. Grant v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 503; Russ v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 594; Fiske v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 745; L…
-
Paul v. State, 165 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…ascertaining whether or not the appellant is in fact [*780] serving a sentence under the aforementioned robbery conviction. If he is, the relief sought by the instant petition should be denied under the authority of McCormick v. State, Fla.App,1964, 164 So. 2d 557, (1964). If, in fact, the appellant is not serving a sentence under the robbery conviction or the sentences imposed under the forgery matters are in excess of that of the robbery conviction, then the appellant should be granted a full and complete f…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1954)
- Berend v. Louie L. Wainwright, 155 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1963)
- Ex parte Welles, 53 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1951)
- Frappied v. State, 163 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Lansman v. Lansman, 163 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Alphonse Nabozny v. State, 163 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)