STANLEY COLEBROOK, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for relief, finding the grounds presented were either previously litigated or insufficient.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and aggravated assault and sought relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. He filed a second motion after his first …
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.
Appellant seeks reversal of an order of the trial court, the criminal court of record in and for Dade County, denying his motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. He was informed against, tried and convicted on May 26, 1964, of the crimes of robbery and aggravated assault, and is currently serving sentences thereon.
The appellant has filed two motions for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. The first such motion was filed by him on January 25, 1965. It was denied by the trial court on July 19, 1965. The second motion, filed by the appellant under Rule 1, on January 28, 1966, was denied by the trial court by an order entered February 4, 1966, which included the following:
“That Movant, at the time of his arraignment and trial, was under the age of 21 years, it is the finding of the Court that the parents or guardian of Movant had notice of the proceedings against Movant in this cause; and that the remaining allegations contained in the Motion do not constitute legal grounds for granting a new trial or release of the prisoner.”
On consideration of the record and the briefs we conclude that the trial judge was eminently correct in denying the motion. The motion in the instant case presents eight grounds. Three of those were raised on the prior motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 and are not subject to a second review under such a motion. See Johnson v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 181 So.2d 667. We have considered the remaining grounds in the light of the record and briefs and conclude, as did the able trial judge, that each either was refuted by the.rec.ord or did not set forth a basis for granting relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riley v. State, 214 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…the identical ground raised in the present motion as the only basis for seeking post-conviction relief. The order here appealed was properly entered under authority of Walker v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 818; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 309; and Fields v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 226. Particularly is this true where a prior denial upon substantially the same ground has been affirmed on appeal. Thompson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 363. Courts should be spared the harassme…
-
Fortin v. State, 203 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…tled to reassert that ground or contention in a subsequent motion. Manning v. State, Fla. [*209] App.1964, 167 So. 2d 616; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So. 2d 667; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 277; Colebrook v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 309. No reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed from is hereby-affirmed. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Noffie Quller Johnson v. State, 181 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)