WILLIE JACKSON, 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 plenary hearing is necessary to determine if the defendant had counsel during trial and sentencing.
The defendant, indicted for murder, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He moved for relief, claiming he had no counsel at any stag…
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 Plenary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant-defendant appeals from a denial of his motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
On September 20, 1954, a grand jury of Okeechobee County, Florida, indicted the defendant, Willie Jackson, for murder in the first degree. There followed a plea of guilty and a sentence by the trial court that the defendant be confined at hard labor in the state prison for and during the remainder of his natural life.
The defendant’s motion states that he had no counsel at any time during the trial and sentencing. The record fails to show that he did. However, the record on appeal shows a series of letters between judges since the motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 was filed. Also, the record contains a copy of an order dated the 30th day of September, 1954, signed by A. O. Kanner, Circuit Judge, awarding G. E. Bryant, Jr., attorney at law of Okeechobee, Florida, an attorney’s fee for representing this defendant. The order alluded to does not specifically state what Mr. Bryant’s services were, but an affidavit filed by Mr. Bryant alleges that he represented the defendant during the trial and sentencing for which the defendant is presently incarcerated.
From the various letters in the file it is not difficult to see what the ultimate outcome will be, but, since there is an issue of fact in this cause, not conclusively shown by the record, it is necessary that the trial judge hold a plenary hearing in order to determine whether or not this defendant did have an attorney at his trial and sentencing.
The order of the trial judge denying relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is hereby reversed in accordance with the views herein expressed.
Reversed.
SMITH, C. J., and SHANNON and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.P. v. Gardner, 838 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…assessment requirements and the detention statute. See, e.g., A.S. v. Byrd, 111 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The power to place in detention those charged with or found to have committed a delinquent act is entirely statutory. See J.J. v. Fryer, 165 So. 2d 260, 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); S.W. v. Woolsey, 673 So. 2d 152, 154 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Section 985.213(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2002), provides, with certain exceptions not applicable in this case, that: All determinations and court orders regarding…
-
Jackson v. State, 180 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 1965)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 165 So. 2d 260.…