FELIPE ALICER RODRIGUEZ, 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.
Felipe Alicer Rodriguez appealed the denial of his post-conviction motion claiming he was insane at the time of arraignment and trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial, finding his allegations insufficient and frivolous because there was no evidence of prior mental illness or treatment.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the post-conviction motion, holding that Rodriguez's allegations of insanity were insufficient and frivolous because he presented no evidence of prior mental illness or treatment for such condition, and the change of plea was made with advice of counsel.
“The Court has carefully examined the petition filed by the defendant Felipe Alicer Rodriguez, the answer filed by the State Attorney, the transcript of testimony taken before the Justice of the Peace, the court file and the court minutes relative to this matter and finds that the petition filed by the defendant Felipe Alicer Rodriguez is contrary to the facts, that the allegations of the petition are untrue and are frivolous.”
The trial court's rationale for denying the post-conviction motion challenging the conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRodriguez was indicted for rape and appointed counsel. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty, but at trial withdrew that plea and pleaded guilty. He wa…
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 Advice Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant Felipe Alicer Rodriguez by this appeal seeks reversal of an order denying his post conviction motion under Criminal Rule 1 by which he collaterally attacks the judgment on the claim that he was insane at the time of arraignment and trial.
Appellant was indicted for the crime of rape. He was without funds to employ counsel. The court appointed an attorney who represented him at the arraignment and at trial. When arraigned he pleaded not guilty. At the time set for trial, he withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the charge of rape. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In denying the petition under Criminal Rule No. 1 F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix the trial court stated:
“The Court has carefully examined the petition filed by the defendant Felipe Alicer Rodriguez, the answer filed by the State Attorney, the transcript of testimony taken before the Justice of the Peace, the court file and the court minutes relative to this matter and finds that the petition filed by the defendant Felipe Alicer Rodriguez is contrary to the facts, that the allegations of the petition are untrue and are frivolous.”
Our inspection of the record leads us to the conclusion that the trial judge did not commit error in ruling that the allegations of the petition were insufficient. See Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 34; Anderson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 887. The action taken by the defendant-at trial was with advice of counsel. The three co-defendants, all of whom had advice of the same attorney, also changed their pleas from not guilty to guilty at the time of trial. Neither the record nor the Rule 1 petition reveals any previous insanity of the appellant or treatment of him for such condition.
We distinguish this case from Knight v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 229, where we held that a contention presented in a Criminal Rule 1 petition of insanity at the time of trial warranted an inquiry and hearing as provided for in § 917.01, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. The distinguishing feature is that in Knight and the cases cited and relied on therein there was, in addition to a present claim of mental incompetence at time of trial, a showing of prior mental illness or treatment for such. It was the latter circumstance which was regarded as making the contention meritorious and not frivolous. In the Knight case that feature was stressed. See concurring opinion of Chief Judge Barkdull (164 So.2d at 231).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
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)
- Anderson v. State, 164 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Brown v. State, 164 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)