WILLIE JR. GRAYSON, A/K/A WILLIE JUNIOR GRAYSON, 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.
This case involves an appeal from the summary denial of a motion for post-conviction relief. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the appellant's claims of illegal arrest, search and seizure, denial of counsel, and coerced guilty plea were either unsupported by facts, previously ruled upon, or refuted by the record.
The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in summarily denying the motion. The claims of illegal arrest, denial of counsel, and coerced plea were either legally insufficient or contradicted by the record, and the claim of illegal search and seizure had been previously denied by a motion to suppress, which was an appealable ruling.
“Allegations in the form of conclusions unsupported by facts necessary to show basis for relief are insufficient under Criminal Procedure Rule 1”
Establishes the standard for sufficiency of claims in a post-conviction relief motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging illegal arrest and detention, evidence obtained from an illegal search and seizure, deni…
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 Denial Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed a motion in the criminal court of record for Dade County, under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924-Appendix, seeking relief from judgment of conviction of the crimes of robbery and *588assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree, for each of which there was imposed a twenty-year sentence, to be served concurrently. The trial court summarily denied the motion, and this appeal followed. The contentions made in the trial court, as best we can determine from the motion were: that appellant’s arrest and detention prior to trial were illegal; that evidence adduced against him was the fruit of an illegal search and seizure; that he was •denied counsel at the preliminary hearing; .and that he was denied his privilege against self-incrimination by being coerced into pleading guilty.
Allegations in the form of conclusions unsupported by facts necessary to show basis for relief are insufficient under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, Brookings v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 578. This is applicable to the above contentions of the appellant claiming illegal arrest and detention and denial of counsel at a preliminary hearing. See Blake v. State, Fla. App.1964, 163 So.2d 20, and Shannon v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 479. The record discloses appellant was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. Appellant’s contention as to illegal search and seizure was properly denied. The contention was made at the trial by a motion to suppress, and was there denied. That ruling was a matter reviewable by appeal. See Duncan v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 718, and Mason v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 618.
The remaining ground asserted in the motion, contending appellant was denied his privilege against self-incrimination by being coerced into pleading guilty is refuted by the record, which discloses that he pleaded not guilty to both of the charged offenses and- was tried thereon on the basis of his not guilty plea.
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
-
Spencer v. State, 259 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…mission of evidence claimed to have been obtained on an illegal search. Austin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So. 2d 730; Duncan v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 161 So. 2d 718; Kirkland v. State, Fla. App.1964, 165 So. 2d 774; Grayson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 587. However, appellant cites Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 22 L.Ed.2d 227, allowing a defendant who was convicted in a federal court to seek post conviction relief there under 28 U.S. C.A. § 2255, for admission of evidence obt…
-
Brown v. State, 229 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…, not conclusions, and must demonstrate invalidity of the judgment and sentence. Murray v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 236; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So. 2d 383; Tolar v. State, Fla.App.1967, 196 So. 2d 1; Grayson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 587; Dias v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So. 2d 766. Furthermore, assuming the contention as to the sentence was open to review, it is wholly unavailing to Brown here because it is elementary that a sentence of imprisonment imposed for violation of a crim…
-
Kish v. State, 202 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See: Austin v. State, Fla. App.1964, 160 So. 2d 730; Duncan v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So. 2d 718; Grayson v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So. 2d 587; Kish v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 315.…
Authorities Cited
- Brookins v. State, 174 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Duncan v. State, 161 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Blake v. State, 163 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Douzier Shannon v. State, 172 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Mason v. State, 167 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)