LENWOOD PATTMON, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a guilty plea and sentence for robbery. The defendant, represented by counsel, pleaded guilty and was sentenced, later seeking to vacate the judgment and sentence, which was denied.
No, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motions to vacate his guilty plea and sentence.
“After a thorough examination of the record, the briefs and all papers filed in this cause, and no error having been made to appear, the trial court's order denying relief is affirmed.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's conclusion after reviewing the case materials.
The defendant was charged with robbery on two separate occasions in October 1963. While represented by counsel, he entered a plea of guilty to the cha…
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 Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant was charged by way of direct information with robbery on October 18, 1963, and again on October 21, 1963. At the arraignment, defendant while represented by counsel entered a plea of guilty’ and was subsequently sentenced. He then filed two motions to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, both of which were denied. Defendant then filed, in pro. per., his notice of appeal, and this court relinquished jurisdiction with directions to the trial court to determine solvency. This having been done, the trial judge found the defendant insolvent and appointed counsel to represent him in this .'appeal.
After a thorough examination of the record, the briefs and all papers filed in this cause, and no error having been made to appear, the trial court’s order denying relief is affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Floretta van Horne v. VAN Horne, 340 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…for the trial judge to deny the proffer of same and to exclude the testimony of Shikany, even though he may have been right in the latter instance for the wrong reason. In Re: Block’s Estate, 143 Fla. 163, 196 So. 410 (1940); In Re: Estate of Cohen, 196 So. 2d 447 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); In Re: Estate of Yohn, 238 So. 2d 290 (Fla.1970); Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1972). It appears to us that it was the intention of the testatrix, in the introduction to the codicil dated November 28,1971, to change…