GEORGE MANGRAM, JR., ALIAS "SKINDIVE" MANGRAM, 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.
George Mangram appeals the denial of his motion to vacate a conviction for second-degree murder entered upon a guilty plea to a lesser offense than the grand jury indictment for first-degree murder. The court affirmed the denial, finding that Mangram received full constitutional protections and was properly represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.
The court held that Mangram's conviction should not be vacated because he received all constitutional protections required by both the Florida and United States Constitutions. The record showed he was properly represented by counsel at arraignment and at the time he changed his plea to guilty of a lesser offense.
“It is apparent from the record that the defendant was given all the protection required by the Florida and United States Constitution even under the ultra-liberal interpretations made by the United States Supreme Court.”
Establishes that the court found Mangram received full constitutional protections despite any liberal interpretations of constitutional rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMangram was indicted for first-degree murder and initially pleaded not guilty with court-appointed counsel representing him from over two months befor…
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 United States Constitution cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from an order of circuit court, Duval County, Florida, Roger J. Waybright, J., denying motion to vacate the judgment of conviction entered upon a plea of guilty to second degree murder, under a grand jury indictment for first degree murder. Defendant was represented by court appointed counsel, appointed more than two months prior to trial date and prior to arraignment. At the arraignment, a plea of not guilty was entered. Prior to trial date, defendant, in open court, attended by counsel moved to withdraw not guilty plea and enter plea to lesser offense. Testimony was taken by the court from the state and defendant, with defendant’s counsel cross-examining. Defendant was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment less certain time served in county jail. About three months after sentence, defendant filed petition for habeas corpus but same was in substance and treated as a motion under Criminal Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The petition alleges that defendant was arrested without warrant; that he was not represented by counsel at his preliminary hearing and arraignment. The lower court correctly found that the petition did not state a true set of facts, but did find that defendant was properly represented by counsel at the time he was arraigned and plead not guilty; that his subsequent change of plea to guilty of a lesser offense was in the presence of counsel. The petition was denied. This was in June 1964. Appeal from that order was filed in this court on December 30, 1964 and upon motion was properly dismissed as being untimely filed.
A second motion to vacate was filed which contained virtually the same allegations as contained in the first petition for habeas corpus, only adding certain further statements about lack of due process. The lower court adopted the language of its first order denying habeas corpus or motion under Rule 1, and denied the second motion. Appeal is from that order.
We think the order appealed should be affirmed. It is apparent from the record that the defendant was given all the protection required by the Florida and United States Constitution even under the ultra-liberal interpretations made by the United States Supreme Court. His guilt was established both by his plea of guilty and evidence taken. There must be an end some place to this unlimited approach to the courts by convicted criminals, when they have counsel, are heard by the court, and only attempt to annoy the processes of justice further after they have heard their sentence pronounced. It is beginning to be apparent from the number of such cases appearing in this court, that some one is advising them to file their motions. It costs them nothing and they can lose nothing.
For the foregoing reasons, the action of the trial court should be, and is
Affirmed.
STURGIS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wright v. State, 189 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…ecords of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief. We have carefully examined the motion, files and records of the case and agree that these conclusively show that appellant was entitled to no relief. Mangram v. State, 179 So. 2d 243 (Fla.App.1965). Affirmed. WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.…
-
Estep v. State, 206 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ppellant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying him a full eviden-tiary hearing on his motion. We have carefully considered all points presented by appellant on appeal and find him to be without merit. See Mangram v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 243; Thompson v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 176 So. 2d 564; Brookins v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So. 2d 578; Shannon v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 479; and Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 506. Affirmed.…
-
Mangram v. State, 209 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 179 So. 2d 243.…