HERMAN WILLIAMS, 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.
Herman Williams appealed the denial of his petition to vacate his murder conviction and life sentence, arguing he lacked counsel at arraignment, entered his guilty plea involuntarily, and was denied the right to appeal. The trial court found after an evidentiary hearing that Williams was accorded due process, had competent counsel, and failed to establish grounds for vacating his conviction. The appellate court affirmed.
The trial court's denial of the petition to vacate the conviction was affirmed. The appellate court found that Williams was accorded due process of law, was given a full and adequate hearing on his petition, and failed to establish any deprivation of constitutional rights warranting vacation of his conviction and sentence.
“An examination of the record which has been brought before us indicates that the appellant was, at all times, accorded due process of law and that he was given a full, adequate and complete hearing on his petition under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1.”
The appellate court's conclusion that the trial court properly provided Williams with constitutional protections and a full hearing on his petition to vacate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was originally indicted for first-degree murder and pleaded not guilty at arraignment without counsel. Five days later, he obtained independe…
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 Competent Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
This is another appeal as a result of a denial of the petition filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The trial judge in this cause conducted an extensive hearing, receiving testimony on behalf of the appellant and the State and, following such hearing, rendered the following order which is here under review:
[CAPTION OMITTED]
“This cause having come on to be heard upon the defendant’s motion to vacate the conviction, judgment and sentence, and the Court, after having reviewed the records in the above-styled cause, at a hearing had on the said motion, at which hearing testimony was offered on behalf of the defendant and on behalf of the State, the Court finds as follows :
“1. That the allegations of the defendant that the State Attorney had made certain promises to the defendant upon which the defendant relied as an inducement to enter his guilty plea was withdrawn.
“2. The Court having heard the testimony on all matters presented by the petitioner, the Court finds that the movant has not established any deprivation of any constitutional rights or grounds to vacate the conviction, judgment and sentence.
“3. That the movant testified in his own behalf that neither the arrest, the detainment in jail, the time involved between filing the warrant and the preliminary hearing influenced him to enter his plea of guilty, but rather, he pled guilty after receiving information secured by the defendant’s own lawyer. There was no testimony that the defendant confessed during the period of his incarceration from the time of arrest until he entered his plea.
“4. That the defendant was represented by competent counsel, experienced in the area of criminal law, both as a prosecutor as well as a defender of persons accused of crime.
*776“5. The defendant further testified that the lawyer volunteered to take an appeal but did not. The Court, however, finds this incredible, as' the defendant also testified that the same lawyer, the same day allegedly tricked the defendant into pleading guilty. The lawyer representing the defendant at the time of the guilty plea denied offering to take an appeal.
“THEREFORE, IT IS CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
“1. That no testimony was offered by the defendant, nor do the records reveal any evidence which would warrant the vacating, setting aside of the conviction, judgment and sentence.
“2. That the defendant’s motion- to vacate the conviction, judgment and sentence be and the same is hereby denied.
“3. That the defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Dade County, Florida and is subject to the original judgment and sentence as heretofore entered in the cause.
“4. That the Sheriff of Dade County, Florida is hereby directed to transfer and deliver the defendant to the State Prison at Raiford, Florida.
“ORDERED at Miami, Dade County, Florida, this 26 day of June, 1964.”
By this appeal, the appellant assigns error because he did not have counsel at the time of arraignment; that the change of his plea from not guilty to guilty was involuntarily done, and that he was denied the right of appeal. At the time of the original arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty. Five days later he acquired independent counsel and the matter came on for trial approximately two months thereafter, at which time he withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty and received a life sentence. The appellant and another had originally been indicted for first degree murder and, of course, if the trial had proceeded upon the not guilty plea ' and they were found guilty they could have been subject to the ultimate penalty.
An examination of the record which has been brought before us indicates that the appellant was, at all times, accorded due process of law and that he was given a full, adequate and complete hearing on his petition under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1.
Therefore, the action of the trial court is hereby affirmed upon the following authorities: Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 190; Morgan v. State, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 308; Perez v. State, Fla.App. 1963, 151 So.2d 865; Ingrim v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 805; Sardinia v. State, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 674, 675.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manning v. State, 176 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…by his privately employed counsel. We affirm the action of the trial judge in denying relief. The State is not responsible for promises or inducements made by one’s own privately obtained attorney, see and compare: Williams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 775. Affirmed.…
-
Echols v. State, 201 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…a of guilty. We find this argument to be without merit, for the principle is firmly imbedded in the law of this State that a prior confession does not vitiate a plea of guilty made subsequently with the aid and benefit of counsel. Williams v. State, 174 So. 2d 775; Taylor v. State, Fla.App., 169 So. 2d 861. Defendant in his motions, brief, and arguments has dwelled at great length on the circumstances under which he confessed to the robbery charge and to the first felonious possession of firearms charge. We…
-
Williams v. State, 183 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1965)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 174 So. 2d 775.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mixon v. State, 54 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1951)
- Rostell Justice v. Warren Laundry & DRY Cleaners, Inc., 168 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1964)
- Morgan v. State, 142 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Ingrim v. State, 166 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Perez v. State, 151 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)