JOHNNIE DANCY, 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.
Johnnie Dancy appealed the denial of his Rule 1 petition for post-conviction relief following his guilty plea to grand larceny. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that Dancy failed to present factual allegations supporting his claims of denial of preliminary hearing, psychological coercion, inadequate counsel, and judicial prejudice.
The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief, holding that Dancy failed to satisfy the fundamental requirement of stating facts rather than mere conclusions in his petition. The court rejected his claims as unsupported conclusory allegations and noted that Florida courts have consistently held that a preliminary hearing is not an essential or critical stage of prosecution.
“The courts of this state have consistently held that a preliminary hearing is not an essential stage in a proceeding; and that it is not a critical step in the prosecution.”
Establishes that denial of preliminary hearing does not constitute grounds for post-conviction relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 17, 1962, Dancy was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling and grand larceny. He initially pleaded not guilty but later voluntarily …
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 petitioner seeks review of an order denying his petition under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 appendix.
On January 17, 1962, a two-count Information was filed in the Criminal Court of Record in Dade County, Florida, charging the petitioner with breaking and entering a dwelling and grand larceny. A plea of not guilty was entered to the charges.
Subsequently, petitioner voluntarily withdrew his plea of not guilty to the charge of grand larceny and entered a plea of *209guilty. The trial court dismissed the charge of breaking and entering a dwelling. The petitioner was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to the State Penitentiary for a term of five years. A petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 was filed and the trial court denied the petition.
The Public Defender’s office represented petitioner throughout the entire proceedings, including the arraignment and at the time petitioner withdrew his plea of not guilty and substituted his plea of guilty 1o the charge of grand larceny.
Petitioner contends that he was denied a preliminary hearing. The courts of this state have consistently held that a preliminary hearing is not an essential stage in a proceeding; and that it is not a critical step in the prosecution. Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So.2d 264; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 305. This contention therefore fails.
The petitioner further contends that the Public Defender used “Psychological Coercion” to force a plea of guilty; that he was inadequately represented; and that the judge was prejudiced because of petitioner’s prior criminal record.
The allegations concerning psychological coercion, inadequacy of counsel, and that the judge was prejudiced, are conclusions of the pleader and are not supported by any factual allegations. The basic requirement in any collateral attack proceeding is that the allegations in the petition state facts, not conclusions, and demonstrate the invalidity of the judgment, sentence or detention. In absence of these supporting factual allegations, the courts have consistently denied the validity of the petitions. Francis v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 684; Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 258; Wooten v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 163 So.2d 305; Webster v. State, Fla. App.1963, 156 So.2d 890.
We are of the opinion that the decision of the trial court is correct, and that no error was committed in denying the petition under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1.
The decision of the trial court is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Dean v. State, 580 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…s of his guilty pleas were precluded as attempts to go beyond the pleas, where defendant had assured trial court under oath, that his pleas were voluntary, and where competent basis existed for trial court’s acceptance of the pleas). Dancy v. State, 175 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (Motion to vacate judgment and sentence was properly denied where allegations concerning psychological coercion, inadequacy of counsel, and prejudice of judge, were conclusions of pleader and were not supported by any factual alle…
-
Swindle v. State, 202 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…795; Messer v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So. 2d 378. As to the case which was tried, the contentions in the motion relating to matters occurring at trial were stated as conclusions not supported by allegations of fact. Dancy v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 208; Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 236. Moreover, such matters were reviewable on appeal. Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730, 732; Harper v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So. 2d 325, 326; Brooks v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 883;…
-
Maceo Bernard Simpson v. State, 181 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)…e was not represented by counsel is a mere conclusion of the pleáder and not only is not supported by any factual allegations, but the record discloses the same to be an untrue statement of fact and therefore without merit. Dancy v. State, Fla.App., 175 So. 2d 208. The order appealed is affirmed. WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and STUR-GIS, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Baugus v. State, 141 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1962)
- Webster v. State, 156 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Wooten v. State, 163 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Erwin v. Erwin, 167 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Francis v. State, 168 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)