NATHANIEL JETHRO HENDERSON, 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.
Henderson appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief following his 1963 robbery conviction and 19-year sentence. The court reversed and remanded for a hearing on his claim that his court-appointed counsel failed to adequately represent him by refusing to discuss the trial after verdict.
The court held that Henderson's first two grounds (warrantless arrest and lack of grand jury indictment) were not proper grounds for relief under Rule I. However, his third ground alleging inadequate counsel representation, supported by the allegation that counsel refused to discuss the trial after verdict, stated legally sufficient allegations to entitle him to a hearing.
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury”
The Fifth Amendment language cited by Henderson to support his grand jury indictment claim, which the court rejected as not applicable under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenderson was tried and convicted of robbery on July 2, 1963, and sentenced to 19 years in prison. On May 18, 1964, he filed a petition for relief und…
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 Fifth Amendment Indictment Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
On July 2, 1963, the appellant was tried, adjudicated guilty of the charge of robbery, and sentenced to nineteen years in the State penitentiary. On May 18, 1964, he filed his petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. This petition was denied in the trial court without formal hearing.
The petition in substance alleges three grounds for relief: (A) petitioner was arrested without warrant, held and interrogated four days before being charged; (B) petitioner was not indicted by a grand .jury in contravention of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which provides that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment of indictment of a Grand Jury * * ; (C) petitioner was' not properly represented by his court-appointed counsel and therefore did not receive a fair trial.
As to ground (A) there is no showing in the petition or in the record that petitioner’s arrest or detention before being charged resulted in the petitioner being denied a fair trial. The trial judge correctly ruled that it was not a ground for relief under Rule I. Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506.
As to ground (B) the trial judge correctly ruled that petitioner was not deprived of a constitutional right because he was tried without having been indicted by a grand jury. Sawyer v. State, 1927, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736; Davis v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 189.
Petitioner’s ground (C) must be considered in more detail because it is not a bare allegation but is supported by his further allegation that his court-appointed counsel refused to discuss the trial with him after the verdict. It may therefore be inferred that the petitioner wished to either move for a new trial or to appeal certain rulings of law made by the trial court. We hold that the allegations under this ground are sufficient to entitle the petitioner to a hearing on this ground of his petition. Cf. Gillyard v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 798. [opinion filed 4/6/65].
We carefully note that we are dealing here only with the allegations, and that this reversal is solely for the purpose of directing the trial court to conduct the hearing to which petitioner is entitled when he states legally sufficient grounds in his petition. State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 224.
Reversed with directions for a hearing on that portion of the petition designated. See Gillyard v. State, supra.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cappetta v. Louie L. Wainwright, 203 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1967)…. 2d 421 (Fla.1961); Kirkland v. State, 165 So. 2d 774 (Fla.App.3rd 1964); Ziegler v. State, 180 So. 2d 477 (Fla.App.3rd 1965); Brooks v. State, 188 So. 2d 883 (Fla.App. 4th 1966); Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736 (1927); Henderson v. State, 174 So. 2d 73 (Fla.App.3rd 1965). . State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla.1967). . Everett v. State, 161 So. 2d 714 (Fla.App.3rd 1964). . See, King v. Wainwright, 368 F. 2d 57 (C.A.Fla.1966).…
-
Simpson v. State, 211 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ctions which set forth the grounds which were claimed by Simpson in the federal [*866] courts, i. e., a denial of a right to appeal or move for a new trial, when properly-raised. See Criminal Procedure Rule No. One; Henderson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 73; Indem. Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 872; and Jackson v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 166 So. 2d 194; Indem. Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 353; Tolar v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 196 So. 2d 1; Nelson v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So. 2d 506. The matters relied upon by t…
-
Reuel Lawson v. State, 215 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…the filing of a criminal information by [*792] the appropriate prosecuting official or by-indictment returned by a grand jury. § 10, Declaration of Rights and Article V, § 9, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A. See also Henderson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 73; Sawyer v. State, 1927, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736; Davis v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 189. 6. Failure to give a certain charge to the jury. Matters involving the giving, or failure to give, instructions to the jury are matters which may be urge…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60 (Fla. 1927)
- Marti v. State, 163 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Davis v. State, 166 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Gillyard v. State, 175 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)