CLIFFORD HALL, 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 the grounds raised in the appellant's second motion to vacate were either repetitious, not proper for collateral attack, or unsupported by evidence.
The appellant filed a second motion to vacate his judgment and sentence, raising several grounds for relief. The trial court conducted an evidentiary …
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 Incommunicado Detention cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court denying his motion seeking relief, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. In May of 1963, the appellant filed a prior motion to vacate his judgment and sentence. This motion was denied by the trial court, which was affirmed by this court. See: Hall v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 324.
The appellant then filed another petition to vacate, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. This petition contained the following grounds: (1) Illegal arrest (2) Unreasonable delay in taking before a committing magistrate. (3) Held incommunicado. (4) Illegal search and seizure. (S) That the prosecutor knowingly used perjured testimony. (6) That the appellant had been coerced into giving a confession and, while said confession wasn’t admitted into evidence, the prosecuting attorney remarked that appellant had confessed his guilt. (7) The prosecutor tampered with the jury. The first five of the above grounds are identical with the grounds made in the petition filed in May, 1963.
The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, at which the appellant testified in his own behalf. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court entered the order appealed denying the appellant’s motion to vacate, holding that the grounds raised by the appellant’s second motion were (1) repetitious, as having been raised by the appellant’s first petition; or (2) not proper grounds for collateral attack; or (3) not supported by the evidence and testimony adduced at the petitioner’s hearing on his Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 motion.
*278We affirm. See: Manning v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 616; Rankin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 324; Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 564; Harris v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 543; Coyner v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 715.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…prior 3.850 motion is no basis for denying relief. Whitney v. State, 184 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and cases collected therein; Lawson v. State, 231 So. 2d 205; Richardson v. State, 202 So. 2d 137; Weeks v. State, 201 So. 2d 764; Hall v. State, 183 So. 2d 277. No matter how many prior applications for collateral relief a prisoner has made, the prisoner is entitled to consideration of his application if it presents a different ground for relief. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068,10 L.Ed.…1 / 2
-
Fortin v. State, 203 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…ng on the first motion, the defendant was not entitled to reassert that ground or contention in a subsequent motion. Manning v. State, Fla. [*209] App.1964, 167 So. 2d 616; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 667; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 277; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 309. No reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed from is hereby-affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Wells v. State, 197 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ccessive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner.” There is also considerable case law to this effect. See Rankin v. State (Fla.App.1964) 168 So. 2d 324; Carpenter v. State (Fla.App.1965) 176 So. 2d 610; Hall v. State (Fla.App.1966) 183 So. 2d 277; Hunt v. State (Fla.App.1966) 183 So. 2d 858, and Thompson v. State (Fla.App.1966) 187 So. 2d 363. The order appealed from is accordingly .affirmed. SHANNON, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ., concur.…
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
- Coyner v. State, 177 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Thompson v. State, 176 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Rankin v. State, 168 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Govoni v. Blackwell, 167 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Manning v. State, 167 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Harris v. State, 177 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Hall v. State, 162 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)