JESSE C. PAIT, 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.
Jesse Pait appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, claiming he was mentally incompetent when he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rejection of this claim, finding that Pait's guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily on the advice of counsel and others.
No. The appellant's guilty plea was valid and knowingly entered upon the advice of experienced counsel and others with his best interests in mind, as a strategic decision to avoid the risk of another death sentence.
“the withdrawal of the not guilty plea and the entry of a plea of guilty by the appellant was done knowingly upon the advice of experienced counsel of his choice and of others having interest in his welfare, in an effort to avoid the risk of receiving a death sentence following another trial”
Establishes the court's finding that the guilty plea was voluntary and strategically motivated, not the result of incompetency
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePait was originally found guilty of first-degree murder in 1957 and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed due to improper prosecutor …
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.
This appeal is from an order of the trial court denying appellant’s petition for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, after an evidentiary hearing.
On June 26, 19S7 appellant was found guilty of first degree murder by a jury without recommendation of mercy. Based thereon he was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court reversed, for certain improper remarks by the prosecutor during closing argument. On retrial the appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty of murder in the first degree, whereupon he was sentenced by the court to life imprisonment.
On November 6, 1964 appellant filed a petition in the trial court under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 seeking to set aside his sentence on the ground that he had not been tried before a jury. That petition was denied. Thereafter appellant filed his present petition under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. The petition was lengthy and set forth numerous grounds. The ground now being relied on was that he was mentally incompetent at the time he pleaded guilty, due to a prior brain concussion and skull fracture. In the trial court the petitioner supported the motion with evidence of certain treatment he had received for the alleged head injury prior to and subsequent to the time in question. Upon an evidentiary hearing the trial judge concluded that contention of the petitioner was without merit, and with reference thereto stated in his order as follows:
“ * * * It is apparent from the record that the defendant entered his Plea of Guilty on the advice of counsel, on the advice of a minister of the gospel who counseled with petitioner, and on the advice of members of his family in the belief that the evidence against the petitioner was so convincing that he would again be found guilty by a jury and that the jury again might not recommend mercy, and that the defendant and his counsel believed that his best hope to escape another death sentence could be to plead guilty and appeal to the mercy of the Court.”
We conclude, as did the able circuit judge, that the withdrawal of the not guilty plea and the entry of a plea of guilty by the appellant was done knowingly upon the advice of experienced counsel of his choice and of others having interest in his welfare, in an effort to avoid the risk of receiving a *17death sentence following another trial, assuming (correctly) that on pleading guilty the death penalty would not be imposed.
Whereupon, no reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
(concurring specially).
I concur in the affirmance on the basis of the reasoning in Rodriguez v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 516.
PEARSON, Judge
(concurring specially).
I concur in the affirmance on the basis of the reasoning in Rodriguez v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 516.