SAMUEL WALTER MCMAHON, 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 appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, holding that the appellant failed to provide the appellate record necessary to review the lower court's factual findings.
No, an appellate court cannot review or reverse factual findings when the appellant has not provided the necessary record evidence.
“Appellant failed to direct that these matters of record be included in the record on appeal, in consequence of which he now asks that we reverse the lower court's findings and conclusions of fact without having the record upon which they were based before us.”
This quote explains the procedural failure that led to the appellate court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant sought relief under a criminal procedure rule, challenging findings that he waived his right to counsel after his retained attorney with…
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
By appeal' from an order denying his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, appellant challenges certain findings of fact upon which the denial of relief was’based. Specifically, appellant suggests that the lower court considered matters dehors the record in finding that appellant,' having been granted a continuance when • his retained counsel withdrew, subsequently appeared and elected to defend himself, waiving his right to counsel. The lower court prefaced its findings with the observations, “as the [original] record in the cause shows” and “as is shown by the *432[original] record,” thereby indicating that minute entries or transcribed reporter’s notes made at the time counsel withdrew and at the trial sustained the findings. Appellant failed to direct that these matters of record be included in the record on appeal, in consequence of which he now asks that we reverse the lower court’s findings and conclusions of fact without having the record upon which they were based before us. We cannot, under the circumstances, attempt to examine or reverse the lower court’s determinations of fact.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and WHITE, JJ., concur.