CLINTON WILBERT HARRIS, 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.
The court held that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proof to overcome the presumption of validity of the judgment attacked.
Appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, which was deni…
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
This is an appeal of an order denying a petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
The appellant was indicted and tried for rape. He was found guilty by a jury which recommended mercy. He was then adjudged guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Examination of the numerous allegations in the motion reveals that many are conclusions of the movant unsupported by factual allegations and could have been summarily dismissed.1 Nevertheless, the trial court conducted a full evidentiary hearing at which appellant was present. We are impressed by the fact that the circuit court gave the appellant full opportunity to present his proof.
*544 As was pointed out in Johnson v. Zerbst2 and reiterated in Twining v. United States,3 the burden of proof is upon the appellant to prove his allegations. Such proof must overcome the presumption of validity which attends the judgment attacked.4 Appellant’s proof fell far short of sustaining his burden.
No error in any respect having been made to appear the order of the trial court will stand affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Pitts, 241 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…CTOR, J., concur. . See Barlow v. State, 238 So. 2d 602. (Fla.1970). . Chambers v. State, 117 Fla. 642, 158 So. 153 (1934) ; and Russ v. State, 95 So. 2d 594 (Fla.1957). . Coleman v. State, 193 So. 2d 699 (Fla.App.1st 1967) ; and Harris v. State, 177 So. 2d 543 (Fla.App.3d 1965). . Paul v. State, 177 So. 2d 537 (Fla.App. 3d 1965). . McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970), and Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U.S. 790, 90 S.Ct. 1458, 25 L.Ed.2d 785 (1970). . Gillyard v. Sta…
-
Hall v. State, 183 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…earing on his Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 motion. [*278] We affirm. See: Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 616; Rankin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 324; Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 564; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 543; Coyner v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 715. Affirmed.…
-
Paul v. State, 177 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…record supports the trial judge’s findings and this case will stand affirmed. Affirmed. . Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); Twining v. United States, 321 F. 2d 432, C.C.A.5, 1963; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 543 (opinion filed July 27, 1965). . Ibid; see Also Russ v. State, Fla.1957, 95 So. 2d 594.…
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
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938)
- Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1963)
- Russ v. State, 95 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1957)
- Arthur v. Sampson, 158 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Twining v. United States, 321 F.2d 432 (5th Cir. 1963)
- Smith v. State, 176 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)