ROGER JAMES HILL, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, holding that the movant was not eligible for relief under Florida's rule because he was not in custody under a Florida sentence, but rather a New Jersey sentence.
No, a person incarcerated in another state under that state's sentence is not eligible for post-conviction relief under Florida's Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, as the rule specifically requires custody under a sentence from a Florida court.
“The order of the trial court which is challenged on this appeal, denying appellant's motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, for relief from a judgment and sentence for the crime of armed robbery, is affirmed on the ground that the appellant is not in custody under sentence of a court established by the laws of Florida.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's decision and the primary reason for affirming the lower court's denial of relief.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Roger James Hill, sought relief from a judgment and sentence for armed robbery in Florida. However, the record showed that Hill was cur…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
The order of the trial court which is challenged on this appeal, denying appellant’s motion under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, for relief from a judgment and sentence for the crime of armed robbery, is affirmed on the ground that the appellant is not in custody under sentence of a court established by the laws of Florida. The record disclosed that appellant is in custody in New Jersey under a sentence of a court of that state. Under the wording of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 a movant is required to be “in custody under Sentence of a court established by the Laws of Florida.’’ See Johnson v. State, Fla.1966, 184 So.2d 161. The fact that the appellant may be subject to be confined in Florida following his release in New Jersey, does not furnish a basis for a present application under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, because of the wording of the rule as referred to above.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Madison Lee Reynolds, 238 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1970)…” within the meaning of Rule 1.850, Cr.P.R., 33 F.S.A., relating to post-conviction remedies. This decision is in conflict with the decisions of the First District in Holstein v. State, 205 So. 2d 6 (1967) and of the Third District in Hill v. State, 184 So. 2d 457 (1966). We have jurisdiction. [*600] In Lawson v. State, Fla., 231 So. 2d 205 (opinion filed January 28, 1970), this Court held that a prisoner serving consecutive sentences is “in custody” under any one of them for the purposes of Rule 1.850, Cr.P.…
-
Demps v. State, 696 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…Rule 1.850 is the predecessor to current rule 3.850. See Grayson v. Wainwright, 330 So. 2d 461, 462-63 (Fla.1976); McGriff v. State, 259 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). In Reynolds the supreme court disapproved this court’s opinion in Hill v. State, 184 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), which held that the language of the rule did not allow a prisoner in New Jersey to file a postconviction motion regarding a Florida conviction. Consequently, Demps’ “in custody” argument has been rejected by the supreme court. D…
-
Madison Lee Reynolds v. State, 224 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…of the congestion of courts is judge-made, on advice of counsel. The Attorney General asks us to follow the decisions of the First District in Holstein v. State, Fla.App.1967, 205 So. 2d 6, and of the Third District in Hill v. State, Fla. App.1966, 184 So. 2d 457, and hold that Reynolds, imprisoned in Texas, is not “in custody under Sentence of a court established by the Laws of Florida claiming the right to be released” within the meaning of CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A. Reynolds mailed three handwritten petitions…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. on the relation of the Borden Co. v. Langley, 184 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1966)