FRAZIER KNIGHT, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's denial of a motion for relief, finding that while the trial court may not have strictly followed the mandate for a new hearing, the prior proceedings substantially complied with the relevant statute and no useful purpose would be served by repeating them.
The court held that while the trial court may have technically erred by not conducting a new hearing, its reliance on prior proceedings was permissible because those proceedings substantially complied with the statute and no useful purpose would be served by repeating them.
“While the appellant may be technically correct, the contention will not serve to cause a reversal.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for not reversing despite a potential technical error by the lower court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Knight appealed an order denying his petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. This court had previously reversed and remande…
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.
This is an appeal from an order entered on a mandate. In Knight v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 229, on an appeal taken by Knight from an order of the trial court summarily denying his petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S. A. Ch. 924 Appendix, we reversed, and remanded the cause with directions to inquire into the claim of insanity at the time of the trial as provided for in § 917.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Thereupon the trial court determined from the record of the prior proceedings that before trial such inquiry had been made regarding Knight’s claim of insanity at time of trial, with negative result. Based thereon the trial court again denied Knight’s motion for relief under Rule 1.
Appellant now contends that the trial judge did not comply with this court’s mandate in that his determination was based on prior proceedings with reference to the claim of insanity and not on a new hearing and proceedings respecting the same under § 917.01, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. While the appellant may be technically correct, the contention will not serve to cause a reversal. This is so because when the record was before us on the earlier appeal it was not disclosed that procedure such as we directed to be taken on remand of the cause had been cared for prior to and in connection with the trial. Those earlier proceedings in this cause, which were relied on by the trial judge, appear to have been in substantial compliance with the requirements of the statute, and no useful purpose would be served by repetition thereof.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Streets v. State, 177 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…of the public defender. He later obtained private counsel and changed his plea to guilty as the trial commenced. We have examined the record [*63] and find no error. See: Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 245; Knight v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 98. (opinion filed May 18, 1965). Therefore, the order here under review is hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Frazier Knight v. State, 211 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. This is the third time Knight has appeared before us upon an appeal from an order denying a Criminal Procedure Rule I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, petition. See Knight v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 229; Knight v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 175 So. 2d 98. The specific contention made in this appeal was decided adversely to the petitioner on his last appeal. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Ellis Howard v. State, 164 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Frazier Knight v. State, 164 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)