CHARLES THOMAS NEELEY, JR., 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.
This case reviews an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate a conviction and sentence. The appellant claimed he was denied counsel at arraignment and trial, violating his constitutional rights. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the appellant had competently waived his right to counsel.
No, the appellant's claim does not warrant vacating his conviction and sentence because the record shows he competently and intelligently waived his right to counsel.
“Our examination of the record convinces us unequivocally that the appellant competently and intelligently waived — through two unchallenged written statements signed by him — his constitutional right to counsel”
This quote establishes the core finding of the court regarding the appellant's waiver of counsel.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was charged with, tried for, and convicted of aggravated assault and attempted escape. He subsequently filed a motion to vacate his judg…
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 Constitutional Right To Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged with, tried for, and convicted of, aggravated assault and attempted escape, and has appealed from an order entered by the Circuit Court for Baker County denying his motion to vacate his judgment of conviction and sentence grounded upon his claim that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the benefit of counsel at his arraignment and trial under the “Gideon doctrine.”
Our examination of the record convinces us unequivocally that the appellant competently and intelligently waived — through two unchallenged written statements signed by him — his constitutional right to counsel, and so he was not entitled to counsel under the rule laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), and Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938).
The order appealed from, therefore, should be and it is
Affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963)