WILLIE THOMAS SMITH, 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.
Willie Thomas Smith was convicted of breaking and entering and grand larceny after a bench trial. He filed a petition to vacate claiming deprivation of a fair trial but alleged only legal conclusions without factual support. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary denial, holding that motions for post-conviction relief must contain factual allegations, not mere conclusions.
A petition to vacate or a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 must allege facts demonstrating the invalidity of detention; bald legal conclusions without supporting factual allegations are insufficient and may be properly dismissed.
“It has long been the rule in habeas corpus proceedings that allegations must state facts, not conclusions, which demonstrate the invalidity of the detention.”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that post-conviction motions must contain factual rather than conclusory allegations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith was charged with breaking and entering a dwelling and grand larceny. Following a non-jury trial on a plea of not guilty, he was found guilty and…
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 Habeas Corpus Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was charged in a two-count information with breaking and entering a dwelling and with grand larceny. Subsequent to a non-jury trial on a plea of not guilty, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to four years in the State-penitentiary.
On March 16, 1964, he filed an unlabeled' paper which the trial court treated as a petition to vacate under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Said document alleges that the appellant was deprived of a fair trial, but fails to allege any grounds to support the allegation of deprivation of fair trial. The petition was. summarily denied by the trial court. There*384after, appellant filed a so-called writ of habeas corpus, which has been treated as a notice of appeal.
We affirm. It has long been the rule in habeas corpus proceedings that allegations must state facts, not conclusions, which demonstrate the invalidity of the detention. See: 15 Fla.Jur., Habeas Corpus, § 88. Motions pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1 are in the nature of a substitute for habeas corpus [See: Roy v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 825] and, consequently, allegations in a Criminal Procedure Rule 1 motion, which recite only bald, legal conclusions with no supporting factual allegations, should be properly dismissed. See: Mankus v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 547; Hale v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 5; Dykes v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 675, 677 (and the numerous Federal cases cited therein); Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 57; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 305; Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148.
As stated in the recent case of Sampson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 771, at page 774:
******
“[4] A cursory examination of the numerous allegations in the motion reveals that many are merely conclusions of the movant unsupported by factual allegations and are, accordingly insufficient and improper. The circumstances under which these motions may be drawn have prompted liberal treatment and ‘broad latitude in compliance with requirements as to form and detail,’ but factual allegations in support of any basis for relief advanced are necessary. Roy v. Wainwright, Fla.1963, 151 So.2d 825. Webster v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 890. A motion advancing mere conclusions as grounds for relief may be properly dismissed. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (3963). * * *” [Emphasis added]
******
Therefore, we find no error in the action of the trial judge in entering the order here under review, and same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Wooden, 246 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1971)…s primarily as a remedy for this problem that Rule 1.850 was promulgated. See Roy v. Wainwright, 151 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1963); Reddick v. State, 190 So. 2d 340 (Fla.App. 2nd, 1966); Tolar v. State, 196 So. 2d 1 (Fla.App. 4th, 1967); and Smith v. State, 176 So. 2d 383 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1965). Essentially, the Rule provides a method by which allegations formerly raised by petition for habeas corpus directed to the appropriate District Court may now be raised in the trial court which entered judgment and sentence; if…
-
Harris v. State, 177 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…pect having been made to appear the order of the trial court will stand affirmed. Affirmed. . Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Sampson v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 771; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 383 (Not yet reported, opinion filed June 22, 1965). . 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); see also Russ v. State, Fla. 1957, 95 So. 2d 594. . 321 F. 2d 432 (C.O.A.5, 1963). . Notes 2 and 3 supra.…
-
Simmons v. State, 212 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…particular witness amounted to a contention that identification testimony given was lacking in credibility. The denial of the motion by the trial court without evidentiary hearing was proper, under ample authority. See Smith v. State, Fla. App.1965, 176 So. 2d 383, 384, and cases cited there. However we modify the trial court’s order to be a denial of the motion without prejudice (Leeds v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So. 2d 77), and as thus modified the order appealed from is affirmed. Modified and affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1963)
- Jetson ROY v. Louie L. Wainwright, 151 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1963)
- Dykes v. State, 162 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Webster v. State, 156 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Wooten v. State, 163 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Arthur v. Sampson, 158 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Byers v. State, 163 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Clifton (Clifford) Hale v. State, 162 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Fulenwider v. Brantley D. Thomas, 161 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Mankus v. State, 161 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)