JAMES LEE GEATHER, 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.
In this post-conviction relief appeal, the court addressed whether the Supreme Court's landmark Gideon v. Wainwright decision guaranteeing appointed counsel to indigent defendants applies retroactively to convictions obtained before Gideon was decided. Although the lower court erroneously concluded Gideon did not apply retroactively, the appellate court affirmed the denial of relief based on other insufficiencies in the motion and the inadequate record.
Although the court acknowledged the lower court erred in ruling that Gideon does not apply retroactively to prior convictions, the court affirmed the denial of relief because the motion itself contained insufficiencies and the record on appeal was inadequate to refute the lower court's other findings.
“it appears that the Gideon decision must be retro-actively applied”
The court's own prior holding in King v. State establishing that Gideon applies retroactively
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant James Lee Geather, an indigent defendant, sought post-conviction relief under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, arguing he was denied h…
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 Motion For Relief Under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
The order here appealed, denying appellant’s motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, was based in part upon the lower court’s determination that:
“ * * * The right of an indigent defendant to court-appointed counsel in a state criminal trial as established by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright, 372 US 335 [83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799], overruling Betts vs. Brady, 316 US 455 [62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595], has no application in the case at bar, inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court did not decide in the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright, 372 US 335 [83 S.Ct. 792], or in any subsequent decision, as it might well have had it intended to, that the States were constitutionally required to apply the new rule retrospectively.
“It is therefore the interpretation of this Court that since the United States Supreme Court did not establish in the case of Gideon vs. Wainwright, 372 US 335 [83 S.Ct. 792], that the rule in that case was to apply retrospectively, that the intention of the United States Supreme Court was not to have the rule applied retrospectively, otherwise it would have certainly have said so.”
The “question” of the propriety of retroactive application of the Gideon rule was discussed briefly in a footnote to our opinion in King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 440. We concluded, “it appears that the Gideon decision must be retro-actively applied.” Recently the United States Courts of Appeal for the Second and Third Circuits considered the same “question.” Both reached the conclusion that conviction secured prior to the decision in the Gideon case should be tested by the standard therein enunciated. United States v. LaVallee, 330 F.2d 303 (2nd Cir.1964); United States v. Myers, 329 F.2d 856 (3rd Cir.1964). We deem it unnecessary to attempt further elaboration on the point. As Judge Hastie wrote in the Myers case:
“The petitioner is entitled to the most competent and informed decision the judge can now make whether there was fundamental unfairness in his past *231conviction.” (Emphasis added. 329 F.2d at 859.)
Notwithstanding the lower court’s error with respect to the applicability of the Gideon decision, we must affirm on the basis of insufficiencies in the motion cited by the lower court, certain other findings of the lower court, and the inadequacy of the record-on-appeal to refute these presumptively correct findings. See Fauls v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 35.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Falagon v. State, 167 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. We reverse. The trial court held that the doctrine announced in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, does not apply retroactively. It was held to the contrary in Geather v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 229. Although the motion contains sworn allegations which we have deemed sufficient to obtain a hearing,1, the trial court held that the defendant did not affirmatively show that he was indigent or unable to obtain counsel at any time in the proceedings…
-
Geather v. State, 169 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1964)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 165 So. 2d 229.…
Authorities Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1942)
- King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- United States ex rel. Raymond Durocher v. LaVALLEE, 330 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1964)
- United States ex rel. Harry Craig v. Myers, 329 F.2d 856 (3d Cir. 1964)
- Adams v. State, 164 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)