OTIS JOHNSON, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of a petition for relief from a conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. The petition, filed after the time for a direct appeal had expired, alleged attorney incompetence and insufficient evidence.
No, the trial judge did not err in denying the petition. The allegations of attorney incompetence were insufficient to warrant relief, and the claim of insufficient evidence should have been raised on direct appeal.
“The petition claimed defendant's attorney was incompetent and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence.”
This quote outlines the two main grounds raised by the appellant in his petition for relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted and sentenced for second-degree murder on June 18, 1964. He did not appeal within the 90-day period. Instead, on September…
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 Competency Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal "seeks reversal of an order denying a petition under Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, which attacked a conviction and sentence for the crime of second degree murder. The judgment and sentence were entered June 18, 1964. No appeal was taken during the 90-day period allowed for such, but instead, on September IS, 1964, the defendant petitioned for relief after judgment under Criminal Rule 1.
The trial judge committed no error in denying the petition, and we affirm. The petition claimed defendant’s attorney was incompetent and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The trial judge correctly concluded that the contention with reference to incompetence of counsel was insufficient upon which to predicate relief. See Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 258; Simpson v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 224. A contention of insufficiency of evidence to warrant conviction is a matter to be presented on appeal and not by motion to vacate under Criminal Rule 1. Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 730; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 312; Barton v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 60S (opinion filed June 22, 1965).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 191 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…iciency of the evidence upon which the jury arrived at a verdict. Such questions cannot be raised under post-conviction procedures, but can only be considered when raised on an appeal from the judgment and conviction. Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 23; Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730. Motion to quash granted. ANDREWS, Acting C. J., WALDEN, J., and T. FRANK HOBSON, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Williams v. State, 202 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…nt's guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Authority contra: Austin v. State, Fla. App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730; Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 402; Wilcox v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So. 2d 427; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 23; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 336; Farrington v. State, Fla. 1966, 183 So. 2d 681. (c) Defendant was not represented by counsel at his preliminary hearing. Authority contra: Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 258; DiBona v. State, Fl…
-
Johnson v. State, 183 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1965)…Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 177 So. 2d 23.…
Authorities Cited
- Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Erwin v. Erwin, 167 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Harris v. State, 167 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)