GEORGE KENNETH CAREY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
This case involves an appeal from an order denying a petition for relief under Criminal Rule 1. The appellant argued he was entitled to relief because he was not given a preliminary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding no prejudice to the appellant from the absence of a preliminary hearing.
No, the appellant was not entitled to relief. The absence of a preliminary hearing did not constitute a lack of due process because no prejudice was shown to have resulted to the appellant.
“No prejudice was shown to have resulted to the defendant because of the absence of a preliminary hearing.”
Establishes the primary reason for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was indicted for rape, appointed counsel, pleaded not guilty, and was found guilty by a jury with a recommendation for mercy. He was sen…
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 Preliminary Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is from an order denying a petition for relief under Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The appellant was indicted by a grand jury and charged with the crime of rape. One week before he was arraigned, counsel was appointed for him by the court. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty. On the trial, at which he had the assistance of counsel, he was found guilty by a jury which recommended mercy. The court adjudged him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Petitioner’s subsequent motion for relief under Criminal Rule 1 is predicated on the sole ground that he was not given a preliminary hearing. The trial judge conducted a full evidentiary hearing, at which the appellant was present. In a comprehensive order the trial judge outlined the steps in the case and concluded by holding that the petition made no sufficient showing for relief and entered an order of denial. On this appeal from that order we conclude that the able trial judge was eminently correct in so holding. No prejudice was shown to have resulted to the defendant because of the absence of a preliminary hearing. The steps in the cause were not delayed, nor were they premature or hastened. No other reason is suggested for determining that the absence of a preliminary hearing caused the orderly prosecution to be lacking in due process. See Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 305; Hoffman v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 38.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reuel Lawson v. State, 215 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…his arrest. Therefore post-conviction relief under the Rule is not available. Wallace v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 443; Murray v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So. 2d 487; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 243; Carey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 603; Blunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 49. 2. Refusal of counsel at line-up. The U. S. Supreme Court, in Gilbert v. State of California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178, and in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18…
-
Rankin v. State, 197 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed under authority of Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 487; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 243; Carey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 603; Cole v. State. Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 698; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 34; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 675; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 667, and Ogilvie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 710. We find tha…
-
Johnson v. State, 236 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…Courts, in the absence of an affirmative showing of prejudice resulting therefrom. Murray v. State, Fla.App., 172 So. 2d 487; Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 790; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 243; Carey v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 603; Wallace v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 443; Blunt v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 49. 2. Johnson also alleges that he “was never informed of his rights nor the accusation against him until the day of his trial by jury”. This is refuted by t…
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
- Wooten v. State, 163 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Acceptance Corp. OF Fla. v. Stewart, 169 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Hoffman v. State, 169 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)