LACEY MOORE
v.
STATE
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for assault with intent to commit manslaughter, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for a continuance. The motion was deemed insufficient because it lacked adequate grounds to justify delaying the trial.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a continuance. The allegations in the motion were insufficient to warrant a delay in the proceedings.
“The allegations of the motion are entirely inadequate and insufficient to show that the accused was entitled to a continuance of the case.”
This quote establishes the court's primary reason for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Lacey Moore, was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. His attorney, hired shortly before the trial began, moved for…
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 Adequacy Of Legal Representation cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff in error was convicted of assault, with intent to commit manslaughter.
On writ of error his sole contention is that the Court erred in denying his motion for continuance. The motion, was as follows:
“Comes now IT. O. Brown, Attorney for the Defendant, Lacy Moore, and moves this Honorable Court for a continuance in this cause and to be permitted to withdraw plea of not guilty heretofore entered in this cause; and, for grounds for said motion, says:
“1. That counsel for defendant was employed just two minutes before the convening of the morning session of Court and the day set for trial of the issue herein and. counsel has not had an opportunity to prepare for the defense in this cause.
“2. That defendant was required to plead to the indictment herein filed without counsel, and that defendant *333is inexperienced in Court proceedings and did not understand the charge alleged in the indictment or his rights in the Court; and, therefore, Counsel desire to file such motion as he is advised after preparing for the defense.”
The allegations of the motion are entirely inadequate and insufficient to show that the accused was entitled to a continuance of the case.
What was said by this Court in the opinion in the case of Bollard v. State, 31 Fla. 266, 12 So. 865, is applicable to the case at bar and on authority of the opinion and judgment in the case of Lowe v. State, 95 Fla. 81, 116 So. 240, the judgment here should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Solomon v. State, 145 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…table presumption of larcenous intent and may be considered by the jury. With reference to other instructions to the jury these in the main were attacked merely by “general exception to the instructions * * * Cf. Ward v. State, 1936, 123 Fla. 248, 168 So. 397; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 80. An appellate court generally will not reverse because a particular charge may be limited or repetitious where the aggregate charges are not misleading but are, on the whole, fair and correct. Such is the situation here. T…
-
Darden v. State, 475 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1985)…reserve an error in instructions in a criminal trial. See, e.g., Patrick v. State, 136 Fla. 853, 187 So. 383 (1939); Teddleton v. State, 131 Fla. 106, 178 So. 909 (1938); Ward v. State, 123 Fla. 248, republished on denial of rehearing, 124 Fla. 113, 168 So. 397 (1936). Despite this waiver of error, petitioner now claims that the error was fundamental and therefore need not be preserved by an action at trial. We have reviewed the charge conference and instructions given to the jury during the guilt phase an…
-
Int'l Lubricant Corp. v. Grant, 128 Fla. 670 (Fla. 1937)…v. Hillman, 87 Fla. 512, 101 So. 31. If a defendant wishes to have the jury more fully instructed upon any point in the case, he should specially request the desired instruction. Hobbs v. State, 77 Fla. 228, 81 So. 441; Ward v. State, 124 Fla. 113, 168 So. 397. As to the contention that the verdict was excessive, it should be observed that the bill of exceptions contained in the transcript fails to show any ruling on the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and also fails to show that any exception was ta…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lott M. Ballard v. State, 31 Fla. 266 (Fla. 1893)
- Lowe v. State, 95 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1928)