ANTHONY THEODORE BELL, 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.
Anthony Theodore Bell, convicted of first-degree murder in 1958 and sentenced to life imprisonment, petitioned for relief based on Escobedo v. Illinois, alleging he was denied counsel during police investigation. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that Escobedo has no retroactive effect in Florida and therefore cannot be applied to convictions predating the decision.
The court held that Escobedo v. Illinois has no retroactive effect in the State of Florida and therefore cannot be applied to convictions that predated the Supreme Court's decision. Consequently, Bell's petition for relief based on Escobedo was properly denied.
“petitioner was indicted, tried and convicted nearly six years prior to the time that the decision in Escobedo was handed down. We hold that the decision in Escobedo v. State of Illinois has no retroactive effect in the State of Florida.”
The court's core holding establishing that Escobedo cannot be applied retroactively to pre-1964 convictions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBell was adjudged guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on November 4, 1958. On June 1, 1964, approximately six years after…
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.
The appellant, Anthony Theodore Bell, was adjudged guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on November 4, 1958. On June 1, 1964, he filed a petition for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The basis of his motion was an allegation that he had plead guilty to the crime because of a confession he had previously made to a police officer. The motion specifically alleges facts in an attempt to bring appellant’s case within the purview of the holding in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). The trial judge promptly set a hearing date and provided for Bell’s presence at the hearing. Extended hearings were held at which testimony was taken. The appellant, Bell, was represented by an attorney.
The trial judge has prepared full findings of fact and an opinion in the cause. We do not find it necessary to discuss the findings and the opinion. Appellant’s points on this appeal are based entirely upon his position that the order denying this motion is erroneous because he was denied a request for counsel during the investigation of the crime and prior to the time he was charged. In order to be entitled to a reversal on this appeal, it would be necessary for us to hold that the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, supra, is controlling as to appellant’s trial in 1958.
So much has been written about the Es-cobedo case that it is unnecessary for us to discuss it here. Without determining whether or not petitioner’s motion if true would bring him within the purview of the Escobedo decision, we point out that petitioner was indicted, tried and convicted nearly six years prior to the time that the decision in Escobedo was handed down. We hold that the decision in Escobedo v. State of Illinois has no retroactive effect in the State of Florida. The cogent reasoning for such a holding has been set out several times and need not be repeated here except to state that we adopt the reasoning set forth in the case of In Re Lopez, 1965, Cal., 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 188, 398 P.2d 380. See also State v. Johnson, 1964, 43 N.J. 572, 206 A.2d 737; People v. Hovnanian, 1964, 22 App.Div.2d 686, 253 N.Y.S.2d 241. For cases with an implied holding to the contrary see: Galarza Cruz v. Delgado, 233 F.Supp. 944 (D. Puerto Rico 1964); Wright v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1964).
While we are aware of no Florida case directly on point, this matter has recently been discussed by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, in Williams v. State, 170 So.2d 586 [opinion filed March 31, 1965] and by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, in Turvey v. State, 174 So.2d 609 [opinion filed April 29, 1965]. Though Escobedo was discussed in both the Williams and Turvey cases, the court in neither case reached a decision on the retroactivity of Escobedo.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitney v. State, 184 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…e appellant relies on the United States Supreme Court decision in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. It has been held that this opinion is not to be given retroactive effect. See: Bell v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 80, cert. den. Fla.1965, 183 So. 2d 209 [opinion filed November 2, 1965]; Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 564; Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601; United States ex rel. Walden v. Pate, 7th Cir.1965, 350 F. 2d…
-
Thompson v. State, 176 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964). We reject that contention on the basis of our recent holding that the decision in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, supra, has no retroactive effect in the State of Florida. See Bell v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 80 [filed May 18, 1965]. The third of appellant’s grounds is that he was induced to confess by illegal interrogation, physical force, and threats.1 [*566] The record reveals that the appellant first pled not guilty; then two separate statements of the…
-
Devlin v. State, 192 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. Inasmuch as appellant was tried on June 1, 1964, a claim that the principles set forth in Escobedo were violated, because he was not advised of the right to counsel, is not applicable. See Bell v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 80. The Escobedo holding is not available to persons whose trials began prior to June 23, 1964. See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882. The main thrust of appellant’s second Rule I petition is that there is new…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Wright v. Dickson, 336 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1964)
- Turvey v. State, 174 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- McMAHON v. Wainwright, 170 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1964)