OTICE MOORE TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
This is an appeal from the lower court’s summary denial of the defendant’s second petition for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, which attacks the voluntary nature of his plea of guilty at the time of trial.
An examination of the petition, record, and briefs indicates that no new grounds for relief are set forth that were not considered by this court in its denial of the first petition under Rule One. See Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 861.
This case is therefore affirmed on the authority of Washington v. Mayo, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 620; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 195.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reuel Lawson v. State, 231 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1970)…e 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is authorized where the same allegation has been raised and rejected in prior motions. Echols v. State, 210 So. 2d 13 (Fla.App.2d 1968); Weeks v. State, 201 So. 2d 764 (Fla.App.3d 1967); Taylor v. State, 183 So. 2d 865 (Fla.App.3d 1966). However, in the case sub judice, the previous denials were authorized under the reasoning in Fretwell v. Wainwright, supra, and McNally v. Hill, supra. The Court could not entertain a motion to vacate in the first instance until i…
-
Blunt v. State, 203 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)…llant’s motion is entitled to be considered if such new matter exists and if it constitutes grounds for post-conviction relief. As to the grounds asserted in the earlier motion however, the denial thereof was res judicata. Taylor v. State, Fla.App., 183 So. 2d 865. We now look to the new matters alleged in the second motion to determine whether they are matters which support a collateral attack on a judgment and sentence. The appellant contends that a confession was introduced against him at the trial which…
-
Thompson v. State, 187 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…upport of the respective parties, and find no error in the action of the trial judge in light of the principles announced in: Rankin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So. 2d 324; Hunt v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 858; Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 865; Whitney v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 184 So. 2d 207. Therefore, the order here under review is (hereby affirmed. Affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bridges v. State, 169 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Ishmael Washington v. Mayo, 77 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 1955)
- Morgan Simpson v. State, 165 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)