SYLVESTER LEE, 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.
A defendant convicted of first-degree murder challenged his guilty plea by moving to vacate the judgment based on allegedly unlawful pre-trial procedures, illegal evidence, and coerced confession. The court affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that a guilty plea moots contentious pre-trial issues and that a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 may be summarily denied when the record shows it lacks merit.
The court held that a guilty plea renders pre-trial procedural violations and claims of illegally obtained evidence moot, and that a trial court properly may summarily deny a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 when the motion is wholly without merit as shown in the record.
“When the trial court, upon inspection of its records, finds that a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is totally without merit, it is proper to summarily deny the motion.”
Establishes the standard for summary denial of Rule No. 1 motions based on the record.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLee was charged with murder in the first degree, represented by counsel of his choice, and entered a voluntary guilty plea after being fully advised o…
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 Illegally Obtained Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, having been charged with murder in the first degree, was represented by council of his own choosing. After being fully advised of his constitutional rights, he voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to murder in the first degree and was adjudged guilty thereof. The trial court permitted evidence of the facts to be presented and obtained a report of the Florida Parole Commission, then sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment.
Defendant filed a motion under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, to vacate the judgment and sentence on the ground that illegally obtained evidence had been used against him, that in the absence of counsel he was coerced into making a confession of guilt, and that he was not taken before a magistrate or judge until more than two weeks after his arrest. This appeal is taken to review an order denying said motion, which order was entered without a formal hearing in the premises. The order is affirmed.
When the trial court, upon inspection of its records, finds that a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is totally withortt merit, it is proper to summarily deny the motion. The record on this appeal clearly reveals that this case is governed by that rule. The evidence received by the court subsequent to defendant’s plea was not made available to the defendant as a matter of right or designed to reopen the case on its merits. Its sole purpose was to aid the court in determining the punishment to be administered for the admitted crime; and it was entirely discretionary with the court to receive it. See Section 909.12, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The defendant received the minimum sentence permissible under the law, and under the circumstances has no standing to complain.
Assuming arguendo that defendant should have earlier been presented before a magistrate or judge, that prior to entering the plea of guilty he was unlawfully coerced to make a confession of guilt, and that certain of his property had been unlawfully seized with the intent to use it against him in evidence on a trial of the charge, his plea of guilty herein rendered these subjects moot as there no longer exists any question of guilt or innocence of the crime charged. See Sullivan v. United States, 315 F.2d 304 (10 Cir. 1963), and United States v. French, 274 F.2d 297 (7 Cir. 1960), which hold that the issue of improperly seized evidence is offset by a plea of guilty. The rationale of that holding applies with equal force to the other issues presented by this appeal.
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzalo R. Reyes v. Honorable Richard Kelly, 204 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…eld of law, this “acceptance” may be either express or necessarily implied. Thus, when a Court upon a plea of guilty proceeds to simply impose sentence, the “acceptance” of such plea by the Court is automatically implied. Lee v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 621. Summing up, the entry of a plea of guilty, or the swearing of a jury in a not guilty case while it may have been loosely referred to from time immemorial as “putting the accused in jeopardy” does not alone activate the Constitutional guaranty of p…
-
Heffner v. State, 218 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. Dovico v. State (Fla.App.1967), 199 So. 2d 308; Lee v. State (Fla.App.1965), 172 So. 2d 621. WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
-
Jeffers v. State, 174 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…ntence under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The identical question presented herein has been previously decided contrary to appellant’s position. See Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So. 2d 861; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 621. Case No. F-483 opinion filed by the First District Court of Appeal on March 16, 1965, and cases therein cited. Accordingly the appeal is quashed as being frivolous and without merit. ALLEN, Acting C. J., and WHITE and ANDREWS, JJ., 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
- United States v. French, 274 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1960)
- Sullivan v. United States, 315 F.2d 304 (10th Cir. 1963)