MOSES K. MURRAY, 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.
Murray challenged his armed robbery conviction through a collateral attack petition under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. The trial court denied his petition, and on appeal, Murray contended he was denied a full evidentiary hearing, but the appellate court affirmed the denial after finding his petition lacked adequate factual allegations and failed to meet the prima facie burden of proof.
The appellate court held that examination of the record shows a full evidentiary hearing was granted, and Murray's petition failed to meet the requirement that allegations state facts rather than conclusions and demonstrate the invalidity of the judgment. Additionally, there is no absolute right to counsel on a Rule 1 collateral attack appeal, and the assistance of counsel was not necessary to accomplish fair presentation of Murray's claims.
“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.”
Establishes the foundational requirement for valid collateral attack petitions under Rule 1
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMurray was convicted of armed robbery in Criminal Court of Record. He filed a collateral attack petition, which the trial court initially denied. On f…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant below, filed a petition collaterally attacking his judgment and sentence in the Criminal Court of Rec-*237ó'rd "lor armed robbery. The trial court treated the pleadings as a Motion to Vacate the Judgment and Sentence, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, and entered an order denying the petition.
Appellant filed his notice of appeal and the Public Defender was appointed to represent him. This court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for the purpose of receiving evidence on the allegations in the petition. Murray v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 313.
A hearing was held by the trial court on the allegations, at which time the files and records were examined; the appellant testified, and the attorneys for the State and appellant were both before the court. The court entered its order denying the petition.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the order denying his petition. This court granted an order permitting the Public Defender to withdraw as appellant’s attorney of record, on the grounds that the matter raised by appellant’s petition did not fall within the purview of State v. Weeks, Fla. App.1964, 166 So.2d 892.
Appellant prepared and filed the necessary pleadings and briefs to complete his appeal, contending that there was not a full evidentiary hearing granted to him by the trial court in accordance with the order of this court. An examination of the record rejects this allegation.
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. See Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 258; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 305.
We have examined the pleadings and briefs filed by appellant in this matter and do not believe that they are within the criteria established by State v. Weeks, supra, in that applicant has the burden of making a prima facie case by the allegations of his petition. If a hearing is found necessary, the applicant has the burden of proving the allegations in the petition. The appellant failed to meet that burden at the hearing held before the trial court.
Inasmuch as appellant was represented by counsel during previous stages of his case, but was not represented by counsel on his appeal presently before this court, it is appropriate for us to state the rule of law as set forth in State v. Weeks, supra, 166 So.2d on page 897, which states:
* * * * * *
“There is no absolute organic right to the assistance of counsel at á hearing on a Rule 1 motion or on appeal from an adverse ruling thereon. Each case must be decided in the light of Fifth Amendment due process requirements which generally would involve a decision as to whether under the circumstances the assistance of counsel is essential to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation of the prisoner’s claims. * * * ”
******
-It is the opinion of this court that the assistance of counsel was not necessary to accomplish a fair and thorough presentation of the appellant’s claim before this court on appeal.
The decision of the trial court in denying the petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is hereby,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swindle v. State, 202 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…d 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; Brooks v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So. 2d 303…
-
Smith v. State, 191 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 236; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 621.…
-
Brown v. State, 229 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…sic requirement in any proceeding collaterally attacking a judgment of conviction is that the allegations in the petition must state facts, not conclusions, and must demonstrate invalidity of the judgment and sentence. Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 236; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 383; Tolar v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 1; Grayson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 587; Dias v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 766. Furthermore, assuming the contention as to the sentence was open…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Wooten v. State, 163 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Erwin v. Erwin, 167 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Murray v. State, 162 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)