HULAN GRANT, 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.
Grant challenged his robbery conviction by seeking to vacate his sentence under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1, arguing weakness of identification evidence, unavailable alibi witness, and another prisoner's confession constituted grounds for relief equivalent to writ of error coram nobis. The court affirmed the denial of his motion, holding that the allegations were insufficient to establish grounds for such extraordinary relief.
The court held that while grounds formerly available through writ of error coram nobis may be urged under Rule 1, Grant's allegations were insufficient to establish a valid case for relief. The motion lacked sufficient detail regarding the timing of his attorney's death relative to the expiration of appeal time to constitute an arguable prima facie case.
“While we agree that any grounds for vacating a sentence which once would have justified writ of error coram nobis can and should, under appropriate circumstances, be urged under Rule No. I, we do not agree that the allegations of appellant's motion sufficed to create a case for relief by coram nobis.”
Establishes the court's holding that coram nobis grounds are available under Rule 1 but that Grant failed to allege sufficient facts
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrant was convicted of robbery and sentenced. After conviction, his attorney died in an accident before perfecting an appeal. Grant was indigent and u…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
Availing himself of the procedure established in Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, appellant made application in the lower court seeking to vacate a sentence imposed upon conviction of robbery. The application was denied and appeal ensued.
Counsel appointed to represent appellant in this court argues that certain allegations in appellant’s motion with respect to the weakness of the identification upon which the conviction rests and the unavailability of an alibi witness at the time of the appellant’s trial, coupled with another prisoner’s “confession” to the crime for which appellant was convicted (which confession was tendered the lower court some six months after the Rule No. 1 motion was filed) would constitute grounds for relief upon writ of error coram nobis seasonably made and are, therefore, grounds for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1.
While we agree that any grounds for vacating a sentence which once would have justified writ of error coram nobis can and should, under appropriate circumstances, be urged under Rule No. I,1 we do not agree that the allegations of appellant’s motion sufficed to create a case for relief by coram nobis. On the contrary, viewed in light of the accepted principles governing coram nobis the motion was insufficient and was correctly denied. See Ex parte Wells, Fla.1951, S3 So.2d 708; Thompson v. State, 1944, 154 Fla. 769, 18 So.2d 788; House v. State, 1937, 130 Fla. 400, 177 So. 705; Chambers v. State, 1934, 117 Fla. 642, 158 So. 153; Pike v. State, 1931, 103 Fla. 594, 139 So. 196; Lamb v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535, and La Rocca v. State, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 64.
The brief filed for appellant in this, cause apparently abandons that issue raised in the motion which the lower court viewed as central and determinative, the issue of alleged denial of counsel for purposes of prosecuting an appeal from the original conviction. Appellant’s motion alleged that at a point after conviction and an unsuccessful motion for new trial the attorney representing appellant was killed in an accident. There is further allegation that the attorney had indicated to appellant that he was perfecting an appeal prior to his death and there is an allegation that appellant was indigent and unable to retain counsel after his original attorney’s untimely death. Even if conceivably these circumstances might justify relief, the allegations of the motion are not sufficiently detailed with respect to the date of the attorney’s death vis-a-vis the expiration of the appeal time as to constitute an arguable prima facie case. Summary denial based on the insufficiency of the motion was justified and is affirmed.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weir v. State, 319 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…to hold an eviden-tiary hearing in accordance with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. SCHEB, J., and SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge, concur. . Fla.Const. art. V, § 5. . Our court suggested this result in Grant v. State, Fla.App. 2d, 1964, 166 So. 2d 503, but declined to pass on the question since the mov-ant in that case was in custody.…
-
State v. Basilio Gomez, 363 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…be raised on a motion to vacate judgment and sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Fast v. State, 221 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Tolar v. State, 196 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Falagon v. State, 167 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Grant v. State, 166 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Solitro v. State, 166 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). This is also the position taken in the federal courts as to motions to vacate judgment and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 from which Florida’s Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850 is taken alm…
-
Sundell v. State, 354 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…im.P. 3.850, that avenue is still open to him. See: Ex Parte Welles, 53 So. 2d 708 (Fla.1951); State v. Pitts, 241 So. 2d 399, 413-14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970), vacated 247 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1971), on remand 249 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Grant v. State, 166 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1954)
- Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 (Fla. 1926)
- Isiah (Izell) Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642 (Fla. 1934)
- House v. State, 130 Fla. 400 (Fla. 1937)
- McCORMICK v. State, 164 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- la Rocca v. State, 151 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Pike v. State, 103 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1931)
- Thompson v. State, 154 Fla. 769 (Fla. 1944)
- Pynes v. State, 66 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1953)