EDWARD EUGENE FRISBY, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a motion to collaterally attack a robbery conviction. The court held that failure to provide a copy of the indictment and lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing were not grounds for relief when the defendant was represented by counsel at arraignment and pleaded guilty.
No, neither the failure to furnish a copy of the indictment nor the lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing are valid grounds for collateral attack when the defendant was represented by counsel at arraignment and pleaded guilty.
“The requirement to. furnish a defendant with a copy of the indictment or information is not jurisdictional.”
Establishes that failure to provide a copy of the indictment is not a fundamental defect.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant pleaded guilty to robbery and was subsequently convicted and sentenced. He later filed a motion to collaterally attack the judgment and …
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 Arraignment cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order denying a motion under Criminal Procedure Rulé 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, which collaterally attacked a judgment and sentence based on the defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of robbery. The grounds relied on were that the defendant was not furnished with copy of the indictment or information and that he was not represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing. The motion failed to state a basis for relief under Criminal Rule 1, and the trial judge was eminently correct in so holding.
The requirement to. furnish a defendant with a copy of the indictment or information is not jurisdictional. Moreover, as the defendant was represented by counsel on the arraignment it can be assumed that he or- his counsel were adequately advised as to the information. See McNeal v. Culver, Fla.1959, 113 So.2d 381. The allegation in the motion under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 to the effect that the defendant was not represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing was properly held by the trial judge not to constitute a valid ground for collateral attack (assuming but not deciding that it otherwise could be), where at the time of arraignment, when the defendant pleaded guilty, he was represented by counsel. See Rash v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 311; Webster v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 890; Blake v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 20.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frisby v. State, 174 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1965)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 167 So. 2d 335.…
Authorities Cited
- Webster v. State, 156 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Blake v. State, 163 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- McNEAL v. Culver, 113 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 1959)
- Rash v. State, 162 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)