LAWRENCE M. ADAMS, 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.
Lawrence M. Adams appeals the denial of post-conviction relief following his guilty plea to second-degree murder after initially pleading not guilty by reason of insanity. The court affirmed the denial, holding that because the defendant did not raise his sanity and plea-withdrawal issues before the trial court, they could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief without prejudice, holding that it cannot consider questions raised for the first time on appeal that were not presented to the trial court. The defendant's claims regarding the change of plea and sanity issues were not considered by the trial court and therefore cannot be considered on appeal.
“This court has held a number of times that it will not consider a question raised first on appeal. Since the question was not considered by the trial court, it cannot be considered on appeal.”
Establishes the procedural bar preventing consideration of issues not raised before the trial court
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAdams was indicted for first-degree murder and initially pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The court appointed two medical doct…
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 Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant Lawrence M. Adams appeals denial of post conviction relief without a hearing.
The defendant was indicted for first degree murder. At his arraignment he pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. As a result of such plea, the court appointed a committee of two medical doctors to determine the defendant’s mental condition. The record does not disclose the report or examination of one of the doctors. The other doctor’s report shows that he examined the defendant, determined among other things that he knew the difference between right and wrong, but that due to extenuating circumstances there was some doubt as to whether or not this conclusion was true. The doctor then recommended that the trial be delayed, and that defendant be referred to the Florida State Hospital for observation and testing by a staff physician over a period of several weeks. Shortly after said report was filed, the defendant changed his plea to guilty of second degree murder, and he was adjudged guilty and sentenced to serve six to twenty years.
The defendant filed motion in proper person for post conviction relief alleging as the sole ground, that he was deprived of his constitutional rights because he was not represented by counsel. The record shows that he was represented by counsel at all critical stages in the proceeding which led to his adjudication of guilt and his sentencing.
The Public Defender was appointed to represent the defendant in this appeal, and attempts to secure a reversal on the grounds that the court abused its discretion in permitting the defendant to plead guilty after having entered a plea of not guilty because of insanity, and the doubt as to his sanity created by the report of the examining medical doctor.
This court has held a number of times that it will not consider a question raised first on appeal. Since the question was not considered by the trial court, it cannot be considered on appeal. Lee v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 443.
*370Accordingly, the order denying post conviction relief is affirmed without prejudice to the right of the defendant to petition for post conviction relief on issues not raised in this proceeding.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford v. State, 210 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…, 208 So. 2d 307, released March 20, 1968, “ * * * he cannot properly be heard in this Court to complain that his plea of guilty in the trial Court was coerced, because he makes no such allegation in his motion”, citing Adams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 369; Whitaker v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 125; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 443. And as to the asserted incompetence of his counsel, the rule is that, where an accused retains his own attorney, he thus waives his right to complain of h…
-
Laures James Dozier v. State, 192 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…plied in the record. Therefore, there are no circumstances permitting or justifying their consideration by this court. See Whitaker v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 125; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 443; and Adams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 369. Otherwise, those allegations which appellant has properly preserved for appellate review have heretofore been decided contrary to his position by the appellate courts of this state. First, appellant argues that he was arrested without a warrant, v…
-
Harvey v. State, 204 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of Lee v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So. 2d 443; Adams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 369; Shea v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 767; Dozier v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 506; Whitaker v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 125; Chayter v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 382; and Wilcox v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 171 So. 2d 427. ALLEN,…
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
- Sandsbury LEE v. State, 165 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)