FRANK ANTHONY AMARAL, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. The court found the appellant's claims of incompetent representation, trial without severance, delay in being brought before a magistrate, and witness perjury were insufficient to warrant a formal hearing.
No, the motion did not present sufficient grounds to require a formal hearing. The claims made were either refuted by the record or insufficient as a matter of law to warrant relief under the rule.
“that the petition was lacking in sufficiency to call for formal hearing and that no error was committed in denying the petition.”
Establishes the court's primary reason for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of rape in 1958 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He subsequently filed a motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No…
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 Rule 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks reversal of an order denying, without formal hearing, his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924, Appendix. The appellant was convicted of rape in Dade County and a life sentence was imposed in July of 1958. Having reviewed the record and briefs we conclude, as did the able trial judge, that the petition was lacking in sufficiency to call for formal hearing and that no error was committed in denying the petition. Appellant’s contention that he had incompetent representation by an appointed attorney is refuted by the record which discloses that he disclaimed insolvency and was represented by an attorney of his own choice. His trial with others without severance was a matter within the discretion *550of the court, and his motion did not show abuse thereof. Appellant’s allegations of delay in being brought before a magistrate and of perjury by a prosecution witness were insufficient to state grounds for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 57. Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vagner v. Louie L. Wainwright, 398 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1981)…here embraced; the holding derives from a number of pre-Cappetta decisions. Williams v. State, 177 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965); Coyner v. State, 177 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Todd v. State, 176 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Amaral v. State, 171 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Everett v. State, 161 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). In Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), the United States Supreme Court held that in a state…
-
Coyner v. State, 177 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…never believed they were adequately prepared to properly defend their clients. In the instant case, the defendant selected his own private counsel and he cannot now challenge his competency in the conduct of the trial. Amaral v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 549. We therefore hold that the trial court was correct in denying the petition of the defendant, inasmuch as he had been represented by the public defender from the day of arraignment to the time of trial, May 27, 1964, and was represented at the tria…
-
Frizzell v. State, 213 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…ains his own attorney he cannot seek reversal in a collateral proceeding for something this attorney failed to do. See Everett v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 714; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 224; and Amaral v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 549. Affirmed. LILES, C. J., and ALLEN and PIERCE, TJ-, concur.…
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
- Byers v. State, 163 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)