GERALD "POPS" BROWN, 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.
A claim of involuntary confession, if not raised on direct appeal, cannot be raised through a successive collateral attack under Rule I.
Appellant filed a motion under Criminal Procedure Rule I alleging his confession was coerced by violence and threats. The record showed he pleaded not…
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 Involuntary Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant urges error upon the summary denial of his motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule I, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The petition alleges that the petitioner was forced to confess by physical violence and threats that if he told of the violence he would be killed. He relies upon Lee v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 95. In that case we cited and followed many cases, including Jones v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 191, which hold that a person who is coerced into entering a plea of guilty is deprived of a constitutional right.
The record of appellant’s trial reveals that he did not plead guilty. The appellant was represented by a private attorney, entered a plea of not guilty, was tried and found guilty. This appeal is governed by the rule stated in Coyner v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 715, where the court held:
“The defendant also contends that the confession introduced against him at the trial was an involuntary confession induced by promises of leniency made to him by the police. The defendant was represented by counsel and had a right to directly appeal the error, if any, in permitting the alleged involuntary confession to be introduced into evidence; and he may not now do so by collateral attack on the judgment of conviction. See Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 564, and cases cited therein.”
See also Ziegler v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 180 So.2d 477.
It should be noted that this is appellant’s second successive rule one petition1 and that he has followed the language of Lee v. State, supra, exactly; however, the Lee case is not applicable because it involved a plea of guilty. The petition in the case sub judice alleges that a confession was not voluntary.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. State, 447 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…(Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Sellers v. State, 249 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); Garner v. State, 218 So. 2d 460, 463 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Paulk v. State, 211 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Robinson v. State, 194 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Brown v. State, 187 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 192 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1966); Ziegler v. State, 180 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Coyner v. State, 177 So. 2d 715, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Chayter v. State, 176 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Kirkland v. State, 165 So. 2d…
-
Brown v. State, 191 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…la.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 224. We agree with the trial court that those portions of the motion attempting to raise collaterally the voluntariness of the confession are insufficient to constitute a ground for relief. See Brown v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So. 2d 669, and cases cited therein. [*613] Appellant’s remaining allegation attempts to collaterally attack the judgment upon the basis of his interrogation prior to trial. See Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 48 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. The tr…
-
Brown v. State, 223 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…ted to that admission on the basis that it was based upon an illegal arrest. At no time was the appellant’s attorney present during the aforementioned proceedings. Further details of this particular case may be found in Brown v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 669; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 518; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 335. Appellant now argues that he was deprived of his constitutional right of cross-examination and confrontation, as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth ame…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 165 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Coyner v. State, 177 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Thompson v. State, 176 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Ziegler v. State, 180 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- LEE v. State, 175 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Gerald "Pops" Brown v. State, 163 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)