CARL WALLACE MERRITT, 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.
Carl Wallace Merritt appealed the denial of post-conviction relief following his 1962 guilty plea to forgery. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court improperly denied the motion without a hearing, particularly given Gideon v. Wainwright's recognition that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to appointed counsel.
The trial court's denial of post-conviction relief without a hearing was improper and must be reversed. The record was not conclusive enough to support denial, especially considering that the notation about being advised of constitutional rights predated Gideon v. Wainwright, which established that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to court-appointed counsel.
“Such a denial can be sustained only where, as stated in the rule, 'the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.'”
Establishes the standard for denying post-conviction relief without a hearing under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMerritt was arraigned in October 1962 on a forgery charge, pleaded guilty after being advised of his constitutional rights, and was adjudged guilty wi…
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 Gideon V. Wainwright cases and more on FLexlaw
Carl Wallace Merritt appeals from an order denying relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The complete record of his arraignment in October of 1962 is as follows:
“Carl Wallace Merritt was called, and defendant being present and the information charging him with forgery being read to him, and he being asked whether he pleads guilty or not guilty, the defendant then and there plead guilty to said charge. The court asked defendant whether he understood such charge, to which he replied that he did. Defendant was advised of his constitutional rights. He stated that he was 29 years of age. The court accepted plea of guilty and adjudged defendant guilty but deferred sentence.”
In 1963 Merritt filed his motion for post-conviction relief, alleging facts to the effect that (1) he was insolvent at the time of his arraignment; (2) that he was denied compulsory process for obtaining witnesses; (3) that he was denied the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense; (4) that at the time of arraignment he asked for counsel which was denied; (5) that at the time of arraignment the state’s attorney advised him that if he would plead guilty the sentences on the two informations would run concurrently, but the court passed sentences to run consecutively; and (6) that he asked the court for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty but this was denied.
The court denied the motion without a hearing. Such a denial can be sustained only where, as stated in the rule, “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief.” Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. This record is not so conclusive, and particularly so when viewed in the light of the fact that the words “defendant was advised of his constitutional rights” were written prior to the Gideon decision, wherein it was first determined that an in*246solvent defendant’s constitutional rights included the right to court-appointed counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799.
The order denying relief is reversed with directions as stated in King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 440.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gunn v. State, 379 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…voluntary. We can sustain summary denial of a motion for post conviction relief only where “the motion and the files and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850; see Merritt v. State, 165 So. 2d 245 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). Since the record in this case does not conclusively refute Gunn’s allegation that his plea was involuntary, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this allegation. For Gunn to prevail, he must present substantial evidence est…
-
Young v. State, 177 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…d at 862. We therefore hold that the procedural default of failing to appeal is not equivalent to an express waiver of a constitutional right and will not preclude collateral attack on an unlawful conviction. See Merritt v. State, Fla.App. 2, 1964, 165 So. 2d 245; and King v. State, Fla.App. 2, 1963, 157 So. 2d 440. See generally, Note 111, U.Pa.L.Rev. 788 (1962-63). This is true in those cases in which attack via direct appeal is foreclosed due to the passage of time. Fay v. Noia, supra. The record in this…
-
Saunders v. State, 340 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…on to vacate pursuant to Rule 3.850 Fla.R.Crim.P. Summary denial of a motion under Rule 3.850 can be sustained only when the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. Merritt v. State, 165 So. 2d 245 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). The allegations of appellant’s motion, if true, would be sufficient to entitle him to post-conviction relief. The trial judge, in his order summarily denying appellant’s motion to vacate judgment, recites that the files and record…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)
- King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)