FREDDIE BERNARD LAWRENCE, JR., 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.
Freddie Bernard Lawrence, Jr. appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief based on Criminal Procedure Rule 1, claiming he was tricked into pleading guilty through perjured testimony at his preliminary hearing. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial, finding that Lawrence failed to establish his allegations and that his guilty plea was freely and voluntarily entered as a tactical defense decision.
The court held that Lawrence's motion for post-conviction relief should be denied because he completely failed to establish the allegations of his motion. The evidence demonstrated that Lawrence confessed and pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily as a tactical defense decision, and his own testimony revealed that anticipation of co-defendants' pleas—not perjured testimony—influenced his decision.
“A review of the complete transcript of the hearings on the motion demonstrates that the appellant completely failed to establish any of the allegations of his motion.”
Establishes that Lawrence failed to prove his claims of being tricked into his guilty plea
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawrence was indicted for first-degree murder and made a formal confession without counsel. He then retained counsel of his choice and entered a guilt…
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 Tactical Decision cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Freddie Bernard Lawrence, Jr., was indicted for first degree murder. He made a formal confession without benefit of counsel. Thereafter, with counsel of his own choice, he entered a plea of guilty as charged. On October 13,1960, the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment.
On February 5, 1965, Lawrence filed a motion for relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule I, F.S.A. Ch. 924 Appendix. In substance, the ground alleged is that he was “tricked and psychologically forced into pleading guilty.” He alleges that he was tricked by the State when it used perjured testimony at his preliminary hearing, and that he was advised by his counsel to enter a plea of guilty.
On April 9, 1965, and April 30, 1965, the trial court conducted evidentiary hearings on the allegations of the Rule I motion. The trial court denied the motion, and this appeal is from that order. Appellant’s position on this appeal (where he is represented by the Public Defender) is that he must be granted a new trial because at the hearing he testified that he had been tricked by perjured testimony at the preliminary hearing, and that the State failed to refute his charge. The trial court called, as witnesses, the arresting officers and those persons having knowledge of the confession and the plea of the defendant.
A review of the complete transcript of the hearings on the motion demonstrates that the appellant completely failed to establish any of the allegations of his motion. The defendant did not testify that he had been tricked into his plea by perjured testimony, but rather that his and his counsel’s anticipation that certain co-defendants would plead guilty influenced his decision. This factor was revealed to be one of several considerations upon which defendant *48and his privately employed counsel determined to enter the guilty plea.
The trial court, after patiently pursuing the charges and giving to the movant the fullest opportunity to demonstrate a violation of a constitutional right, correctly denied the motion when the evidence demonstrated that the movant confessed to the crime and pleaded guilty, freely and voluntarily, as a tactical decision in his defense of the charge brought against him.
Affirmed.