LAURES JAMES DOZIER, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Dozier appealed his conviction for robbery following a guilty plea and 10-year sentence, raising numerous arguments about arrest procedures, interrogation without counsel, and inadequate representation. The court affirmed, finding most arguments were not properly preserved for appeal and those that were properly raised had been rejected by prior Florida appellate decisions.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that most of Dozier's arguments were not properly preserved for appellate review because they were not presented in the original motion for post-conviction relief, and those arguments that were properly preserved had been decided contrary to Dozier's position by prior Florida appellate decisions.
“Appellant makes numerous arguments in his "Brief of Appellant" which have no proper basis therein, since these arguments were not presented in the first instance to the trial court in appellant's original motion, and therefore appellant may not properly present them to this court.”
Establishes the procedural rule that arguments must be raised in the original motion for post-conviction relief or they cannot be raised on appeal.
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 14, 1965, Dozier was charged with robbery in Hillsborough County. He initially pled not guilty on September 20, 1965, but on November 22,…
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 Illegal Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
On 14 September 1965 an information was filed in the Office of the Criminal 'Court of Record, in and for Hillsborough •County, Florida, charging appellant with the crime of robbery. On 20 September 1965 appellant appeared with his own attorney, waived arraignment, and entered a plea of not guilty to the above information. •On 22 November 1965 appellant again appeared, with his court-appointed counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered .a plea of guilty to said information. On the same day appellant was adjudged guilty ■and was sentenced to serve a term of ten years in the Florida State Prison. On 31 May 1966 appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied by order •entered 15 June 1966.
Appellant makes numerous arguments in his “Brief of Appellant” which Rave no proper basis therein, since these arguments were not presented in the first instance to the trial court in appellant’s original motion, and therefore appellant may not properly present them to this court. Furthermore, the allegations of the appellant and the facts to justify such allegations are neither apparent nor implied in the record. Therefore, there are no circumstances permitting or justifying their consideration by this court. See Whitaker v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 125; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 443; and Adams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 369.
Otherwise, those allegations which appellant has properly preserved for appellate review have heretofore been decided contrary to his position by the appellate courts of this state. First, appellant argues that he was arrested without a warrant, violating his constitutional rights. Even if true, this cannot be properly considered in a post-conviction attack on his judgment and sentence. See Duncan v. State, Fla.App.1964, 161 So.2d 718 and Smith v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 585.
Appellant alleges also that he was interrogated without the presence of counsel and that his request for counsel was denied. Assuming such allegations can properly be raised in a collateral attack on his judgment and sentence, in this particular instance this allegation would be immaterial in view of his subsequent plea of guilty. Had the confession been illegally obtained it would have been rejected when offered at a trial on the merits. See Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1964, 169 So.2d 861. Finally, appellant concludes that he had “insufficient counsel” which is nothing more than a naked conclusion and was properly rejected by the trial court. See Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 224; Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 258, and Kirkland v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 774.
Affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and PIERCE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. Wainwright, 238 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1970)…titioner is that he was arrested in violation of his constitutional rights. An arrest without warrant is not a proper basis for a post-conviction attack on a judgment and sentence. Lawson v. State, 215 So. 2d 790 (Fla.App.2d, 1968); Dozier v. State, 192 So. 2d 506 (Fla.App.2d, 1966). However, the transcript of trial proceedings discloses that defendant was taken into custody pursuant to a warrant, even though the arresting officer did not actually inform petitioner that he was under arrest. Petitioner furthe…
-
Reuel Lawson v. State, 215 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…contention now made with respect thereto comes too late. 3. Illegal arrest. Even if true, this is immaterial in a collateral proceeding under the Criminal Procedure Rule. Childs v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 605; Dozier v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 506. 4. Refusal of counsel during police interrogation. The U. S. Supreme Court, in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, held that presence of counsel at the time of in-custody questioning was a constitutional right. But in…
-
Sands v. State, 202 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…nces (appellant does not contend otherwise), and a voluntary plea of guilty waives all defects which are not jurisdictional or fundamental. Hines v. State, Fla.App.1967, 195 So. 2d 605, 606 (arrest without a warrant) ; Dozier v. State, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 506, 507 (arrest without a warrant, interrogation without benefit of counsel, and inadequate representation by counsel at trial) ; Childs v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 605, 606 (arrest without a warrant) ; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Simpson v. State, 164 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Erwin v. Erwin, 167 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Bridges v. State, 169 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Duncan v. State, 161 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Sandsbury LEE v. State, 165 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Kirkland v. State, 165 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Major Realty Corp. v. Fla. State Tpk. Auth., 160 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Smith v. State, 168 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Adams v. State, 179 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)