ROBERT PIERCE KEY, 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.
Robert Pierce Key appealed the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, challenging his guilty pleas to robbery on grounds of delay before magistrate appearance, allegedly coerced confession, and inadequate counsel waiver. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding the motion lacked sufficient grounds and that Key's waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary.
The court affirmed the denial of the Rule 1 motion, concluding that the first two grounds were unsupported by allegations of prejudice or legal basis for relief, and that the waiver of counsel claim lacked merit because the record demonstrated Key's knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to counsel.
“the record shows the trial judge patiently and meticulously explained to the defendant his right to counsel, and questioning by the court brought answers from the defendant which disclosed he understood his right to counsel and the effect of proceeding without counsel. The record adequately shows that the defendant intelligently and understandingly waived his right to counsel.”
Establishes that the waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary based on the trial judge's careful explanation and the defendant's demonstrated understanding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKey was charged with robbery in four informations filed September 11, 1964. He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, rejected the public defender, and ch…
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 Intelligent And Understanding Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant Robert Pierce Key was charged with robbery in four informations filed September 11, 1964. He was arraigned thereon and pleaded not guilty. On a hearing held later, relating to appointment of counsel, the defendant rejected the public defender as counsel and chose to represent himself. The record discloses he was informed as to his right to counsel and waived counsel. Thereafter, on October 22, 1964, the defendant withdrew his pleas of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the offenses charged in three of the four informations. He was then adjudged guilty thereon and received ten year concurrent sentences. This appeal does not concern the fourth information on which he did not plead guilty.
On June 3, 1966, a motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix was filed on behalf of the defendant through the public defender, alleging as grounds (1) undue delay between the time of his arrest and appearance before a magistrate; (2) that while he was held incommunicado a confession was obtained as a result of improper questioning; and (3) that being untrained in law he was confused and not properly informed as to his right to counsel.
The trial court denied the motion summarily. A petition for rehearing reasserting said grounds was denied. Thereupon the defendant filed this appeal in proper person, seeking reversal of the order denying his Rule 1 motion and the order denying his petition for rehearing.
We conclude, as did the able trial judge, that the motion failed to set forth grounds upon which relief appropriately could be granted. The first two grounds of the motion were not supported by allegations showing any prejudice or basis at law for relief thereunder. Milton v. Cochran, Fla.1962, 147 So.2d 137; Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506; Gibson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 766; Swarthout v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 773; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So.2d 97. The defendant’s third contention, relating to waiver of counsel was equally without merit. The record shows the trial judge patiently and meticulously explained to the defendant his right to counsel, and questioning by the court brought answers from the defendant which disclosed he understood his right to counsel and the effect of proceeding without counsel. The record adequately shows that *666the defendant intelligently and understandingly waived his right to counsel. Further, the record discloses that at the time defendant changed his pleas from not guilty to guilty, he again was advised by the court of his right to counsel, and that he repeated his waiver of counsel and voluntarily entered the guilty pleas.
No reversible error having been made to appear the order appealed from should be and hereby is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Craig, 237 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1970)…“Q O.K. This is what we are interested in, the whole thing.” The state argues two cases as in conflict with the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal. These are Ortiz v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 57, and Key v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So. 2d 664. Key is not even remotely in point. There post-conviction relief was sought from judgments founded on guilty pleas after “the trial judge patiently and meticulously explained to the defendant his right to counsel, and questioning by the court broug…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Milton v. Cochran, 147 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1962)
- Marti v. State, 163 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Gibson v. State, 173 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Williams v. State, 174 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Swarthout v. State, 165 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)