EDWARD GOBIE, 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.
Edward Gobie appealed a trial court's denial of his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, challenging his convictions for robbery and breaking and entering. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the continuance granted and no prejudicial error in Gobie's arraignment without counsel, as he was later represented by counsel and changed his pleas accordingly.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the continuance. Challenges to evidentiary rulings are not grounds for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 and are reviewable on direct appeal from the judgment. Gobie was not entitled to relief for lack of counsel at arraignment because no prejudice resulted, as he obtained counsel and subsequently changed his pleas.
“A continuance granted prior to trial, on motion of the state, was a matter within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Abuse of discretion was not shown.”
Establishes that trial court's grant of continuance was discretionary and no abuse was demonstrated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGobie was charged in three informations: two for robbery and one for breaking and entering. He was tried and convicted on two informations and pleaded…
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 Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged in two informations with robbery and in a third with breaking and entering. He was tried and convicted on two informations and pleaded guilty on one. The sentences imposed run concurrently. His motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, was denied by the trial court, and this appeal followed. A continuance granted prior to trial, on motion of the state, was a matter within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Abuse of discretion was not shown. Appellant’s challenge of a ruling of the trial court on admissibility of certain evidence does not present a ground for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, being a matter reviewable on appeal from the judgment. Mason v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 618; Kirkland v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 774. The trial court correctly rejected appellant’s contention that he was entitled to relief because he was without counsel when arraigned on two of the in-formations, as no prejudice was shown to have resulted therefrom. Snow v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 557; Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 258; Abbott v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 243; Fauls v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 35; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 28; Webster v. State, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 890. When so arraigned the defendant pleaded not guilty. Later, with the benefit of advice of employed counsel, defendant’s pleas of not guilty were changed to not guilty by reason of insanity on two of the infor-mations, and trial was had thereon. On the remaining information, with advice of em*34ployed counsel, the defendant changed his plea to one of guilty.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paulk v. State, 211 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…sly held that questions with respect to admissibility of evidence are reviewable only on appeal and not upon a motion to vacate or set aside the sentence under Rule 1.850. Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 29; Gobie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 33; Ziegler v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So. 2d 477; Kirkland v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 774; Austin v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730. The second contention made by appellant is that he was denied the right to counsel until after he was a…
-
Gobie v. State, 188 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…sentence filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule Number One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. The appellant filed his notice of appeal from that order of denial on October 7, 1965, and the cause is presently before this court as Gobie v. State, Fla.App., 188 So. 2d 33 [Case No. 65-837, opinion filed June 21, 1966]. On October 21, 1965, the appellant filed a second motion to vacate the same judgments and sentences of the trial court, alleging different grounds. The trial court entered its order on November 8, 196…
-
Barnett v. State, 222 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…t and sentenced accordingly. During all the stages of the trial subsequent to the arraignment, he was represented by such counsel. The 3rd District Court in two cases, Ingrim v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 805, and Gobie v. State, Fla.App.1966, 188 So. 2d 33, has held that a defendant, moving for post-conviction relief, under identical circumstances, was not constitutionally entitled to counsel. We follow this rule because “no prejudice was shown to have resulted therefrom.” We would probably hold diff…
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
- Webster v. State, 156 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Erwin v. Erwin, 167 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Kirkland v. State, 165 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Gobie v. State, 188 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Loyd Abbott v. State, 164 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- McCLENDON v. State, 164 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Adams v. State, 164 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Mason v. State, 167 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Snow v. State, 171 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)