THEODORE ZIEGLER, 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 court held that a defendant's claim of being a minor at trial without parental notification requires an evidentiary hearing, and a claim of a forced confession cannot be raised via a motion for relief.
Defendant filed a motion for relief alleging he was a minor at trial and his parents were not notified, and that his conviction was based on a forced …
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 Appeal From Judgment Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a summary denial of the defendant’s motion for relief brought pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. Chapter 924 Appendix.
Defendant set forth in his motion that he was a minor at the time of his trial and that his parents were not notified of said trial. He further alleged that his conviction was based upon a “forced confession” introduced at the trial of the cause. We find no merit in the latter contention. It has been repeatedly held in this state that questions raised as to the admissibility and weight of the evidence may only be raised by appeal from the judgment of conviction and not by motion to vacate.1 The defendant was represented by counsel and he had a right to directly appeal the error, if any, in permitting the alleged involuntary confession to be introduced into evidence; and he may not now do so by collateral attack on the judgment of conviction.2
Defendant’s next contention is that at the time of his trial he was a minor and that his parents were never notified of his trial in violation of § 932.38, Fla.Stat. F.S.A.
The motion shows that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing *479that he was entitled to relief on that ground as he did not allege that he was an unmarried minor.3
However the court did examine the record and found that the parents or guardian of defendant had notice of the proceedings against him. We are not satisfied that such a finding can be made upon a mere examination of this record. We have therefore concluded that an evi-dentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether the defendant was an unmarried minor at the time of his trial and, if so, whether the notification as required in § 932.38 was complied with.
Accordingly, the order denying defendant’s motion is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Cappetta v. Louie L. Wainwright, 203 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1967)…521 (Fla.1964). Accord, Jackson v. State, 166 So. 2d 194 (Fla.App.3rd 1964); Burke v. State, 160 So. 2d 523 (Fla.App.1st 1964). . Warner v. Cochran, 135 So. 2d 421 (Fla.1961); Kirkland v. State, 165 So. 2d 774 (Fla.App.3rd 1964); Ziegler v. State, 180 So. 2d 477 (Fla.App.3rd 1965); Brooks v. State, 188 So. 2d 883 (Fla.App. 4th 1966); Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60, 113 So. 736 (1927); Henderson v. State, 174 So. 2d 73 (Fla.App.3rd 1965). . State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla.1967). . Everett v. State, 161 S…
-
Joseph v. State, 447 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…218 So. 2d 460, 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Paulk v. State, 211 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Robinson v. State, 194 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Brown v. State, 187 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 192 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1966); Ziegler v. State, 180 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Coyner v. State, 177 So. 2d 715, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Chayter v. State, 176 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Kirkland v. State, 165 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Duncan v. State, 161 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Austin v. Sta…
-
Paulk v. State, 211 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…bility of evidence are reviewable only on appeal and not upon a motion to vacate or set aside the sentence under Rule 1.850. Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 29; Gobie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 33; Ziegler v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 477; Kirkland v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 774; Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730. The second contention made by appellant is that he was denied the right to counsel until after he was arraigned and that as a consequence of this it wa…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Coyner v. State, 177 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Miles v. State, 174 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)