JAMES RUBY THOMAS, A/K/A JAMES R. THOMAS, 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.
James Ruby Thomas appealed the denial of his Rule One petition for collateral relief from a rape conviction, claiming the trial court denied him compulsory process to call witnesses. The court affirmed the denial, holding that because Thomas pleaded guilty, there was no legal necessity to call witnesses and the failure to do so was a matter of defense counsel's discretion, not grounds for collateral attack.
The denial of compulsory process for witnesses is not a valid ground for collateral attack under Criminal Procedure Rule One when the defendant has pleaded guilty. Since Thomas pleaded guilty, there was no legal necessity for counsel to call witnesses, and the failure to call witnesses represents a matter of defense counsel's personal judgment and discretion, not grounds for collateral relief.
“It is obvious, therefore, that since he pled guilty at the time of the trial, there was no legal necessity for his counsel to call witnesses.”
Establishes the court's core holding that a guilty plea eliminates the necessity for calling witnesses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 17, 1963, Thomas was indicted for rape. He initially pleaded not guilty but then withdrew that plea and pleaded guilty as charged. The de…
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 Petition For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, James Ruby Thomas, also known as James R. Thomas, defendant below, seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his petition for relief filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix.
On September 17, 1963 the defendant was indicted by the Grand Jury for Dade County, Florida for the crime of rape. Thereafter, the defendant personally appeared in court with his attorney, Irwin Block, and entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment. Later, the defendant, through his attorney, withdrew his prior plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty as charged. The defendant testified in his own behalf at that time. Prior to entering judgment and pronouncing sentence, the defendant was asked in open court if he had anything to say to show why the judgment and sentence should not be entered, at which time he said nothing. The Circuit Court then sentenced the defendant to ninety-nine years in the State penitentiary.
.
The defendant’s petition for relief filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. One, alleged, inter alia, that he had witnesses for the purpose of producing testimony in his behalf, but the court did not take this into consideration and would not subpoena his witnesses into court for testimony. The lower court denied the petition after hearing argument of counsel on both sides, and hearing the testimony of one witness, Irwin Block. This appeal followed.
The defendant contends on appeal that the denial of the right to compulsory process of witnesses is a valid ground for collateral attack under Criminal Procedure Rule No. One, and relies on the case of Byers v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 57. In that case, the petitioner did not have a hearing on the allegations contained in his Rule One *362petition. In the instant case, defendant was granted a hearing and his counsel at the time of the original trial testified at the hearing in direct opposition to the allegations contained in the petition. It should also be noted that in the Byers case, supra, a full trial was conducted by the attorney for Byers, while in the instant case, the attorney had entered a plea of guilty to the charges on behalf of the defendant.
It is obvious, therefore, that since he pled guilty at the time of the trial, there was no legal necessity for his counsel to call witnesses. Furthermore, the failure of counsel to call witnesses on behalf of the defense is a matter of personal judgment exercised by defense counsel and is not a ground for collateral attack. Brookins v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 578; Gillvard v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 798.
The defendant has failed to substantiate the allegations contained in his petition, and judgment of the lower court is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. Wainwright, 238 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1970)…sel failed to subpoena witnesses for his defense is without merit. Failure of counsel to call witnesses on behalf of the defense is a matter of personal judgment exercised by defense counsel and is not a ground of collateral attack. Thomas v. State, 190 So. 2d 361 (Fla.App.3rd, 1966). See also Whitney v. Cochran, 152 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1963). Petitioner has failed to allege sufficient facts which, if true, would sustain his position that he was not represented by competent counsel. The transcript of the trial a…
-
Caplinger v. State, 271 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…pp.1968, 215 So. 2d 617, nor will counsel be viewed as incompetent because he exercised his personal judgment and did not call a certain witness on behalf of the defense. Fuller v. Wainwright, Fla. 1970, 238 So. 2d 65; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 361. Accordingly, defendant’s first argument must fail. The final question raised on appeal concerns the validity of the sentence imposed by the substituted judge. It is permissible to allow a judge who did not preside in the trial to pass sentence upo…
-
Nicholson v. State, 250 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…ration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See Meinsen v. State, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 188; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 612; Thomas [*348] v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 361; Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 863; Byrd v. State, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 1; Powell v. .State, Fla.App.1971, 244 So. 2d 746; and Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 699. Affirmed. REED, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Byers v. State, 163 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Brookins v. State, 174 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Gillyard v. State, 175 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)