JAMES CURTIS SNOW, 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.
James Curtis Snow challenged his conviction for second-degree murder by filing a petition alleging he was denied counsel at a preliminary hearing and that his court-appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition, finding the allegations unsupported by the record and without demonstrated prejudice.
The trial court properly denied Snow's petition because neither allegation was supported by facts in the record, and more importantly, because absent some alleged or apparent prejudice, lack of counsel at a preliminary hearing is insufficient grounds for relief. The record showed Snow knowingly changed his plea with counsel's advice.
“the ground that the petitioner was not given counsel at a preliminary hearing is not sufficient unless some prejudice is alleged by petitioner or suggested by the record”
Establishes that bare allegations of denial of counsel without showing prejudice are insufficient to warrant relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSnow was indicted by Grand Jury for first-degree murder. At arraignment, he entered a not guilty plea, and the court appointed qualified counsel upon …
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’s petition for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 appendix was denied in the trial court.1 A *558reply was filed and at a hearing the trial judge entered the order 2 which is now appealed.
The petition urged: (1) he was not given counsel for a preliminary hearing, and (2) the counsel appointed by the court failed to competently represent him at trial. No facts are given to support either contention. The record reveals that petitioner was indicted by the Grand Jury for first degree murder. He was arraigned at which time a plea of not guilty was entered to the indictment. At the arraignment, upon a showing of the defendant’s insolvency, the court appointed a well-qualified member of the Bar to represent the defendant in any further proceedings in the cause. Subsequently, petitioner entered a plea of guilty of second degree murder. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
The record neither supports nor refutes petitioner’s allegation that he was not represented at the preliminary hearing. The answer of the State Attorney asserts that he was represented but we do not consider this answer as sufficient to support a finding that he was represented as against petitioner’s allegation that he was not so represented. Nevertheless, the order of the trial judge was proper because the ground that the petitioner was not given counsel at a preliminary hearing is not sufficient unless some prejudice is alleged by petitioner or suggested by the record. Bell v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 28. In the present record it is shown that at trial and with advice, of counsel, petitioner changed his previous not guilty plea to a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense. It may reasonably be presumed that he did so with knowledge of the legal effect of the evidence against him and in order to escape the jeopardy incident to a plea of not guilty to first degree murder.
The second ground of the petition, which alleged incompetency of the court-appointed counsel is likewise insufficient unless some fact to support the base conclusion is alleged or suggested by the record. Wooten v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So.2d 305.
Affirmed
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brookins v. State, 174 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…ng is nothing more than a naked conclusion, without any supporting allegations of fact. Thus, it does not constitute a ground for vacating the conviction and sentence. See: Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305; Snow v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 557. Furthermore, in view of the fact that in the absence of a showing of prejudicial harm a preliminary hearing is not an essential step in a criminal proceeding [see: Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So. 2d 264, cert. den 83 S.Ct. 153, 371 U.S. 879, 9 L…
-
Gobie v. State, 188 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…4. The trial court correctly rejected appellant’s contention that he was entitled to relief because he was without counsel when arraigned on two of the in-formations, as no prejudice was shown to have resulted therefrom. Snow v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 557; Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 258; Abbott v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 243; Fauls v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 35; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 28; Webster v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So. 2d 890. When so arraigned th…
-
Davis v. State, 176 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Wilder v. State, 156 So. 2d 395 (Fla.App.1963), Lambert v. State, 169 So. 2d 374 (Fla.App.1964), and Snow v. State, 171 So. 2d 557 (Fla.App.1965). STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wooten v. State, 163 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- McCLENDON v. State, 164 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)