JAMES RALPH PLYMALE, 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.
James Ralph Plymale appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 1, claiming he entered guilty pleas due to physical abuse, threats against family members, and promises of immunity, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on two of his grounds.
The court held that Plymale's allegations regarding coerced guilty pleas through physical abuse, threats, and promises of immunity state sufficient grounds for relief, and his allegations of inadequate legal representation and deprivation of counsel consultation also warrant an evidentiary hearing. The trial court erred in denying the petition without providing such a hearing.
“Appellant's sworn petition alleged that he pled guilty because he had been physically abused, threatened with the arrest of members of his family and his girl friend unless he confessed, and promised their immunity from prosecution if he would confess, plead guilty, and "not cause any trouble at his coming trial." We hold that these allegations are sufficient, upon the record in this case, to state a ground for relief.”
Establishes that allegations of coerced guilty pleas through abuse, threats, and promises constitute sufficient grounds for Rule 1 relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlymale pled guilty to five separate charges: three robberies and two assaults with intent to commit murder in the first degree. He was sentenced to 3…
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 Incompetence Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant pled guilty to the charges in five separate informations, to wit: No. 61-5345, robbery; No. 61-5387, robbery; No. 61-5388, robbery; No. 61-5716, assault *58with intent to commit a felony (murder in the first degree) ; No. 61-5717, assault with intent to commit a felony (murder in the first degree). He was sentenced on the robbery charges to a total of 30 years, the sentences running consecutively. He was sentenced on each of the assault charges for a term of 20 years, the sentences to run concurrently with the sentences imposed on the robbery charges and each other. Appellant was represented in the trial court by the Public Defender, and he is represented on this appeal by appellate counsel appointed by the trial court.
Appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, was denied without eviden-tiary hearing and this appeal followed. We reverse with directions to grant an evi-dentiary hearing on two of the grounds stated in the motion. We will confine our discussion to these two grounds because the other allegations either do not constitute grounds for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 or are stated merely as conclusions without supporting factual allegations.
Appellant’s sworn petition alleged that he pled guilty because he had been physically abused, threatened with the arrest of members of his family and his girl friend unless he confessed, and promised their immunity from prosecution if he would confess, plead guilty, and “not cause any trouble at his coming trial.” We hold that these allegations are sufficient, upon the record in this case, to state a ground for relief.
There is nothing in the record that refutes the allegations or otherwise conclusively precludes relief; therefore, the court erred in denying the petition without affording the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence. Sampson v. State, Fla. App.1963, 158 So.2d 771.
The second allegation upon which we think the petitioner was entitled to a hearing is to the effect that the petitioner was not properly represented by his court-appointed counsel. We have previously stated the rule that incompetency of court-appointed counsel is not a ground for relief in a Rule 1 proceeding unless sufficient facts are alleged to show that the incompetency made appellant’s trial a mockery or farcical. Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 224. We reaffirm this proposition, but nevertheless determine that inquiry should be made into these allegations because the appellant alleges that he was deprived of a trial by his forced pleas and that he was deprived of an opportunity to consult with an attorney or receive the advice of counsel. Cf., Henderson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 174 So.2d 73. The record before us does not refute these allegations.
Reversed with directions to grant petitioner an evidentiary hearing upon the two grounds set forth.
Reversed.
(dissenting).
See: Stein v. People of State of New York, 346 U.S. 156, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 97 L.Ed. 1522; Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760.
BARKDULL, Judge
(dissenting).
See: Stein v. People of State of New York, 346 U.S. 156, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 97 L.Ed. 1522; Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maxwood Clarence Brumley v. State, 224 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…threats by a sheriff or a deputy sheriff the plea is not voluntary and may be vacated under Criminal Procedure Rule 1.850. Jones v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 191; Reddick v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 340; Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 57; and Waley v. Johnston, 1942, 316 U.S. 101, 62 S.Ct. 964, 86 L.Ed. 1302. The allegations in the motion that the appellant was threatened by the sheriff and a deputy sheriff that he would be tried on a capital charge of kidnaping if he sought to def…
-
Plymale v. State, 201 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. This is a proceeding involving a petition filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Following the rendition of the opinion reported in Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 57, the appellant’s petition for relief came on for evidentiary hearing before the trial court, wherein the appellant [represented by counsel] was present and testified. From the record, it appears that the appellant was charged with five informations…
-
Potts v. State, 242 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…ntention, to be insufficient. Boone v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 869. In fact, such allegations of fact must be so strong as to show that such alleged incompetency of counsel made the trial a mockery or a farce. Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 57; Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 854; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 243; Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 695; Crusoe v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 600. The trial Court is not required to have an evidentiary hearin…
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
- Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1961)
- Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1953)
- Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Arthur v. Sampson, 158 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Henderson v. State, 174 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)