EDWARD WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Edward Williams, convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, sought collateral relief via Criminal Procedure Rule One years after his direct appeal period expired. The court reversed and remanded, holding that admission of Williams's judicial confession made at a preliminary hearing without counsel violated due process, constituting grounds for collateral attack despite procedural limitations.
The admission of Williams's judicial confession at the preliminary hearing without counsel violated due process and was error. Although such error would form a proper basis for reversal on direct appeal, it also constitutes grounds for collateral attack under Criminal Procedure Rule One because the preliminary hearing was rendered a critical stage when evidence of the confession was permitted at trial. The court reversed and remanded.
“The assistance of counsel is an essential of due process at every critical stage of a criminal prosecution that can result in the death sentence.”
Establishes the constitutional principle that right to counsel is fundamental in capital cases at all critical stages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was tried by jury and convicted of first-degree murder without recommendation of mercy, receiving a death sentence. No direct appeal was take…
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 Judicial Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
We treat this as an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, Williams v. State, Fla.1965, 178 So.2d 586.
Edward Williams, appellant, was tried by jury and convicted of murder in the first degree without recommendation of mercy. A death sentence was imposed and no appeal was taken from this judgment. The time for appeal having long- since expired, Williams seeks via the instant procedure to collaterally attack his judgment of conviction.
Two problems present themselves. First, was error committed during the course of his trial? Second, if errors do appear, has there been such a denial or infringe*526ment of the constitutional rights of the prisoner as to render the judgment vulnerable to collateral attack through Criminal Procedure Rule One?
The jury having retired to consider its verdict, it interrupted its deliberation and returned to the courtroom and asked, “If the case of a verdict of murder with mercy, recommende[d], does that make the defendant able to be paroled or can it be— is it permanent?” The court answered, “Under the law of the State of Florida, any person imprisoned in the State Prison for life or for a term of years, 'is eligible for parole.” This answer by the court was harmful error. Burnette v. State, Fla.1963, 157 So.2d 65 (decided subsequent to the trial in question). While this colloquy would form a proper basis for reversal on direct appeal, it is not a sufficient basis for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule One.
The defendant was granted a preliminary hearing before a justice of the peace. Defendant unattended by counsel, entered a plea of guilty and stated, “I am guilty, I did it.” The justice of the peace testified at trial and, over the defendant’s objection, repeated the defendant’s statement. Defendant did not testify or offer evidence.
The assistance of counsel is an essential of due process at every critical stage of a criminal prosecution that can result in the death sentence. Here the preliminary hearing was rendered a critical stage when at trial evidence of the judicial confession was permitted. Thus, it was error to permit defendant’s judicial confession into evidence and this is true despite the fact that the defendant tendered his plea and “confession” at the preliminary hearing after having been advised of his constitutional rights. Harris v. State, Fla.1964, 162 So.2d 262 (decided subsequent to the trial in question). In this connection, see also decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 1961, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114; and White v. State of Maryland, 1963, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 10 L.Ed.2d 193, referred to as controlling by our supreme court in the Harris case.
Is this matter of sufficient import as to be reachable by Rule One ? In Harris v. State, supra, a case not distinguishable from this, except that it is a direct appeal, the pronouncement is found that such procedure constitutes a denial of due process of law. We say then that the error is equally subject to collateral attack by Criminal Procedure Rule One.
Reversed and remanded.
SMITH, C. J., and KANNER (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 228 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1969)…ght, appellant was apprehended. He was tried and convicted. After his first trial the appellant collaterally attacked his conviction and was awarded a new trial pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1 [now 33 F.S.A. Rule 1.850]. See Williams v. State, 184 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). In the instant proceedings appellant was found guilty of first degree murder. The jury did not recommend mercy and the death sentence was imposed. We have carefully considered all of the appellant’s assignments of error but see…
-
Murray v. State, 191 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…t such testimony should not he considered by them in arriving at their verdict. This admonition removes the case at bar from the situations presented in White and Harris, supra.” (Emphasis added.) 179 So. 2d at 379. Then followed Williams v. State, 184 So. 2d 525 (D.C.A.Fla.1966), which involved an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate judgment and sentence. In the Williams case, supra, the defendant was tried and convicted of murder after having plead guilty, without counsel, before a justice of t…
-
State v. Williams, 195 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1967)…PER CURIAM. The State petitions for writ of certi-orari contending that the subject decision of District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 184 So. 2d 525, is in direct conflict with the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Rollins v. State, Fla.App., 179 So. 2d 377. . The . two cited decisions of the district courts do in fact conflict directly on the same point of law. Howe…
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
- Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1961)
- White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1963)
- Knowlton v. Boca Raton Club, Inc., 162 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 1964)
- Lemuel Dean Burnette v. State, 157 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1963)
- Williams v. State, 178 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1965)