JAMES B. HICKS, 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 court held that a trial court cannot summarily deny post-conviction relief based on matters outside the record if the record itself, when considered with the petition, suggests a potentially valid claim.
Petitioner sought post-conviction relief alleging he was convicted and sentenced without counsel while indigent. The petition was technically insuffic…
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 Matters Dehors The Record cases and more on FLexlaw
James B. Hicks appeals an order denying his petition for post conviction relief filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. In layman’s language the petitioner alleged that he was adjudged guilty and sentenced without assistance of counsel at a time when he was indigent and could not afford counsel.
The petition did not allege that the movant was convicted of a felony and was presently in custody. It also failed to allege in substance that the movant did not intelligently and competently waive his right to counsel. As observed in Dixon v. State, Fla.App.1964, Second District, 163 So.2d 771, the trial court could have denied the motion summarily on the ground that it was insufficient. The court, however, elected to investigate the record before making findings and pronouncing his conclusion. We have previously held in Dixon v. State, supra, that if the court goes beyond the allegations of an insufficient petition filed under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 and studies the record, and the record supplies the requisite missing allegations, the court may not deny the motion on the ground that it is not sufficient.1
The record divulges that the petitioner was convicted and sentenced following a guilty plea to a charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and that the petitioner was not represented by counsel during the critical stages of the proceedings. The record does not disclose that the insolvent petitioner was offered appointed counsel or that petitioner knew that he was entitled to be represented by counsel without cost to him. The court merely concluded dehors the record:
“5. Defendant has had previous experience with the law and with appearance in Court, having been convicted in the State of Ohio previously for Grand Larceny and Breaking and Entering With Intent to Commit a Felony, having been sentenced there to a term of from One to Fifteen Years and having been later paroled.
“6. That had Defendant requested the assistance of counsel, then counsel would have been appointed by the Court, since it was at that time the *206practice of the Orange Comity Bar Association to furnish counsel for all defendants when requested to do so, but the Defendant did not request counsel and instead admitted the guilt of the crime with which' he was charged.
“THE COURT CONCLUDES as a matter of law that Defendant was not denied the assistance of counsel in preparing for his defense in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.”
We have previously held that a determination of matters dehors the record cannot form the basis for summary denial of relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. Keur v. State, Fla.App.1963, 160 So.2d 546. The fact that the -record is silent as to whether or not the defendant requested counsel or whether or not defendant was offered counsel does not create a presumption that the defendant competently and intelligently waived his right to counsel. King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 440. That case also held:
“ * * * if the record shows that the court neither advised defendant of his constitutional right to counsel nor offered to appoint counsel, and the return of"the prosecuting attorney of the court makes no allegation of fact to the effect that the defendant was aware of his constitutional right to counsel and was offered counsel, there is no need to determine' the question of competent and intelligent waiver, for a waiver ‘is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’ ” (emphasis added)
See also Williams v. State, Fla.App.1964 (Second District), 163 So.2d 767; Phillips v. State, Fla.App.1964 (Second District), 164 So.2d 858.
The allegations of the motion considered with the record revealed a potentially valid claim for relief and it became incumbent upon the court to call for answer by the State and then, if necessary, judicially resolve any issues made. The order is reversed for further proceedings in accordance with the directions announced in King v. State, supra.
Reversed and remanded.
SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swarthout v. State, 165 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…ere there is ample support for it in the record, as here.2 Accordingly the judgment appealed is affirmed. Affirmed. . Sardinia v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 328; Conley v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 752. . Hicks v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 204, (opinion filed June 10, 1964).…
-
Allen v. State, 358 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…that Appellant served only one year. Without a complete record, we cannot find that Appellant’s motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that Appellant is entitled to no relief. See Saunders v. State, supra, and Hicks v. State, 165 So. 2d 204 (2 DCA 1964); and Wright v. State, 355 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2 DCA 1978). REVERSED and REMANDED for an ev-identiary hearing on Appellant’s Rule 3.850 motion. ALDERMAN, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Savage v. State, 156 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Keur v. State, 160 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Ellis Dixon v. State, 163 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Phillips v. State, 164 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Cleveland Williams v. State, 163 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- PAN Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Botana, 163 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)