FRANK J. MANNING, 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.
Frank Manning appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, challenging his guilty plea conviction on eighteen counts. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that Manning's allegations fail to overcome the presumption of regularity and that the trial court properly refused to entertain successive motions for similar relief.
The trial court properly denied Manning's petition because his allegations fail to overcome the presumption of regularity of his conviction, and Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 specifically provides that sentencing courts are not required to entertain second or successive motions for similar relief.
“The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”
The controlling rule preventing trial courts from being compelled to hear successive motions for relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 16, 1962, Manning, without counsel, entered a guilty plea to eighteen counts of a nineteen-count information. He was sentenced to concurre…
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 Petition For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-defendant Manning appeals from the trial court’s order entered on the 10th day of March, 1964, denying his petition for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Prior to the instant petition, Manning had filed in the same trial court a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was denied April 17, 1963, and a motion to vacate sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 which was denied July 17, 1963.
On November 16, 1962, defendant, without counsel, entered his plea of guilty to eighteen counts of a nineteen-count information and was sentenced by the trial court as follows: (1) to a term of six months to five years on each of eight counts, said sentence to run concurrently each with the other; (2) to a term of six months to eight years on another count, said sentence to run concurrently with the preceding sentence; and (3) to a term of six months to two years on another count, said sentence to run concurrently with the preceding sentences. Sentence was deferred for eight counts r.nd the remaining count to which defendant pleaded not guilty was placed on the inactive docket. The order of the judgment of the trial court contained the following finding:
“Now on this day came in person the defendant Frank J. Manning into open court and upon inquiry by the Court to him as to whether he had counsel or desired counsel, the said defendant announced that he was without counsel and did not desire the same.”
Defendant’s allegations set forth in his petition for habeas corpus and his two subsequent motions to vacate sentence involve substantially the same subject matter. The substance of said allegations is the same as those itemized in this court’s opinion in Dykes v. State,1 and in accordance with that decision we conclude that such allegations fail to overcome the presumption of the regularity of defendant’s conviction.
Furthermore, Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 specifically provides, viz.:
“The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.”
Our state courts have not had the occasion to specifically interpret the foregoing provision. Hoivever, federal jurisdictions have consistently held that trial courts are not required to entertain second or successive motions.2 The trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion.
Affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Crusoe v. State, 183 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…riminal Procedure Rule No. 1 specifically provides inter alia that— “The sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” See also Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 616; Simpson v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So. 2d 195. Finally, with reference to the competency of defendant’s counsel, the motion is clearly insufficient. The record shows that defendant was represented by the Public Defender at the time he changed hi…
-
Carpenter v. State, 176 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…under review, contains substantially the same allegations as those contained in the two previous petitions. We find no error in the trial judge’s denial of this last petition and, therefore, we affirm his action. See: Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 616; Rankin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So. 2d 324. Affirmed.…
-
Noffie Quller Johnson v. State, 181 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…ial differences between appellant’s two motions to vacate. This appeal simply reasserts the matters complained of on the former appeal. The trial court was under no duty to entertain a second or successive motion as here filed. See Manning v. State, 167 So. 2d 616 (Fla.App.1964). We take note of the fact that appellant claims he appeared before the committing magistrate without benefit of counsel, that he was without funds to employ counsel, and that the magistrate did not advise him of his right to counsel…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dykes v. State, 162 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- McGANN v. United States, 261 F.2d 956 (4th Cir. 1958)
- Shobe v. United States, 220 F.2d 928 (8th Cir. 1955)
- Hamilton v. United States, 204 F.2d 927 (4th Cir. 1953)
- Tawes v. Cie. Des Messageries Maritimes, 346 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1953)
- Helms v. Universal Atlas Cement Co., 346 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1953)
- Bickford v. United States, 206 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1953)
- Emerson G. Shockley v. United States, 224 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1955)