CURTIS L. INGRIM, APPELLANT.
v.
THE 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 an allegation of police perjury is legally insufficient without alleging the State knowingly used the testimony, and that a defendant is not prejudiced by the failure to appoint counsel prior to arraignment if they plead not guilty.
Appellant petitioned for relief, alleging police perjury and failure to appoint counsel before arraignment. The trial court denied the petition. Appel…
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 Knowing Use Of Perjured Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The principal contentions are that he was entitled to a hearing on the question of (a) his allegation that the police officer who testified for the State was guilty of perjury, and (b) that appellant was prejudiced by the failure of the Court to appoint counsel prior to his arraignment.
Appellant’s allegation as to perjury of a police officer has been determined to be legally insufficient to constitute a valid collateral attack in the absence of an allegation that the State knowingly used perjured testimony' in order to secure the conviction. Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730.
Appellant’s contention that he was entitled to counsel at arraignment is not availing.
We do not overlook Harris v. State, Fla.1964, 162 So.2d 262 [opinion filed March 25, 1964, not yet reported], wherein the Florida Supreme Court held that a plea of guilty entered at an arraignment or preliminary hearing which is subsequently admitted into evidence at the trial has the effect of making the prior proceeding a “critical stage.” Assuming arguendo that an arraignment may become a “critical stage” in a criminal proceeding thereby entitling an indigent defendant to court-appointed counsel as indicated in the Harris case, this is not such a case.
He plead not guilty at arraignment. Subsequently, counsel was appointed by the court to represent appellant at his trial. Excluding the alleged perjury of a witness, it is not suggested that appellant did not receive a fair trial on his non-guilty plea. If the appellant had been provided with counsel prior to arraignment and had plead not guilty, the result would not have been changed by the fact that he had counsel at the time he entered the plea. Furthermore, *807if the appellant had plead guilty on advice of counsel at arraignment he would have been so adjudged and the result would not have been changed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barnett v. State, 222 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…ry, and thereafter was adjudged guilty by the Court and sentenced accordingly. During all the stages of the trial subsequent to the arraignment, he was represented by such counsel. The 3rd District Court in two cases, Ingrim v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 805, and Gobie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 33, has held that a defendant, moving for post-conviction relief, under identical circumstances, was not constitutionally entitled to counsel. We follow this rule because “no prejudice was shown to have…1 / 2
-
Noffie Quller Johnson v. State, 181 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…to appoint counsel to assist an indigent accused at such hearing is an insufficient basis upon which to raise constitutional issues, especially where as in this case there is no contention that appellant was prejudiced thereby. See Ingrim v. State, 166 So. 2d 805 (Fla.App.1964); Webster v. State, 156 So. 2d 890 (Fla.App.1963). Finally, there is no substance to appellant’s mere assertion that his counsel was incompetent. That bare charge is nothing more than a random accusation and a bland conclusion of the…
-
Williams v. State, 174 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…e, the action of the trial court is hereby affirmed upon the following authorities: Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 190; Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1962, 142 So. 2d 308; Perez v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 151 So. 2d 865; Ingrim v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 805; Sardinia v. State, Fla.1964, 168 So. 2d 674, 675. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Knowlton v. Boca Raton Club, Inc., 162 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1964)