JAMES LEROY 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.
Williams, who pleaded guilty to breaking and entering with intent to commit rape after allegedly being beaten by detectives and threatened by police that he would face the electric chair unless he cooperated, sought post-conviction relief. The court reversed the trial court's denial of his Rule 1 motion without a hearing, holding that allegations of coerced guilty pleas must be heard on the merits regardless of whether the defendant was represented by counsel.
The court held that a defendant is entitled to a hearing on allegations of a coerced guilty plea regardless of whether he was represented by counsel at the time of the plea. The fact that the defendant had counsel does not provide a valid answer to allegations of coercion when the record does not otherwise refute them.
“A prisoner who is coerced into entering a plea of guilty is deprived of a constitutional right.”
Establishes that coerced guilty pleas violate constitutional rights and entitle prisoners to relief, citing Jones v. State.
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 charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit rape and assault with intent to commit rape. With counsel present, he withdrew h…
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
Appellant was informed against for the crimes of breaking and entering with intent to commit rape and assault with intent to commit rape. Subsequently with counsel by his side, he pleaded guilty to the crime of breaking and entering with intent to commit rape, was adjudged guilty and sentenced to serve a term of 15 years. The State abandoned the count charging assault with intent to commit rape. Three years later, while serving the sentence imposed, Appellant petitioned the trial court for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, Chapter 924, Appendix F.S.A. Pertinent allegations in his petition for relief were that he was beaten about the head, neck, side and stomach by two interrogating county detectives, who also kicked him several times on his leg and chest until he was in such intense pain that he was carried to the medical clinic at the county jail, examined by a doctor and was given several shots by a nurse to ease the pain. His petition further states that police officers told him the alleged victim of the crime was a cousin of the judge and unless he pleaded guilty to the charge and saved the court the trouble and expense of a long trial, he might get the electric chair; but if he would cooperate by pleading guilty, the judge would probably give him probation *280or a little jail time since he had no prior criminal record.
In a responsive pleading entitled “Motion to Dismiss”, the State Attorney did not deny the allegations of the petition but contended that the allegations in the petition were frivolous because the petition also shows that appellant, while represented by counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. On this appeal the State contends that since the record does not reflect that counsel was appointed for appellant, it must be assumed that appellant was represented by counsel of his own choice and that Williams v. State1 firmly establishes the rule that when a movant changes his plea of not guilty to guilty when represented by counsel of his own choosing he is entitled to no relief under Florida Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. The State concedes that in Lee v. State 2 the Third District Court of Appeal held that allegations of a guilty plea having been entered by reason of coercion, when not otherwise traversed by the record proper, required a hearing on the merits of the motion, but it contends that case is not controlling, because there the movant was represented by a Public Defender rather than by privately employed counsel. In Lee it was held that the fact that petitioner had counsel at the time of entering his plea is not a valid answer to the allegations set out in the motion for relief. We conclude that the same rule is applicable here and that the movant is entitled to a hearing since this record does not reflect on its face anything which would traverse the allegations contained in appellant’s petition.
In Jones v. State3 where the sole question was the factual issue of a coerced plea of guilty, it was held that since the State Attorney did not refute the allegations in the petition, the movant was entitled to a hearing under-Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1. The Second District in arriving at its decision squarely held: “A prisoner who-is coerced into entering a plea of guilty is. deprived of a constitutional right.”
Appellant has stated facts sufficient to-raise the question of whether he was. coerced into pleading guilty, and neither the State Attorney’s answer nor the record refutes these allegations. Therefore the order of the trial court, which denied the defendant’s motion without a hearing, is
Reversed.
STURGIS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Malley v. Louie L. Wainwright, 237 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…hat a guilty plea was coerced is sufficient to entitle a petitioner to a hearing. Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1968, 210 So. 2d 488; Paul v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 779; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 95; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 279; Reddick v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 340. Obviously, the time for appealing the order denying motion to vacate to this Court has long since expired, but, as the Federal Court noted, O’Malley “was never advised of his right to appeal, nor of a…
-
Nolan v. State, 192 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)…ly refuted by the court’s minute book entries disclosing the presence of a public defender at arraign [*501] ment and sentencing. This was error under the following decisions of three other district courts of appeal: Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 279; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 95; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 191.1 The defendant’s allegations may tax credulity; nevertheless, they do raise a factual issue of coercion which can be resolved only by a hearing. Reversed. S…
-
Bennett v. State, 203 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ea of guilty was coerced by the police. His motion was denied without a hearing, and he appeals. Appellant’s unrebutted claim that he was coerced to plead guilty entitled him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion, Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 279, 280; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 95; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 191, 192, notwithstanding the fact that he was represented by private counsel at the time he entered his plea. Williams v. State, supra, 186 So. 2d at 280; cf.…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 165 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- LEE v. State, 175 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Williams v. State, 167 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)