EDWARD G. RAMSEY, 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 denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, finding no evidence that the appellant was arraigned without counsel or that his guilty plea was involuntary. The court relied on the transcript of the arraignment showing the appellant was represented by the Public Defender and explicitly understood the charges, potential penalties, and his right to a jury trial before pleading guilty.
No, the appellant was not denied counsel at arraignment, and his guilty plea was voluntary. The trial court's order denying his motion to vacate judgment and sentence is affirmed.
“The only evidence of an arraignment is that found at page 26 of the record where the defendant plead guilty.”
Establishes the factual basis for the court's review of the arraignment proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Edward G. Ramsey, appealed an order denying his motion to vacate a judgment and sentence. He claimed he was arraigned without counsel o…
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 Understanding Of Charges cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant has appealed from an order denying his motion to vacate judgment and sentence.
He alleges that on or about August 2, 1965, he was arraigned without the aid or presence of counsel and that the court entered a plea of not guilty in his behalf since he was before the court without counsel.
The only evidence of an arraignment is that found at page 26 of the record where the defendant plead guilty. The court asked appellant if he was represented by Mr. Luckey of the Public Defender’s office and he replied, “yes, sir.” The appellant was then asked how he plead to the counts of the information and he answered, “Guilty,” to both charges. The court then asked appellant:
“THE COURT: All right, Edward, are you thoroughly, do you thoroughly understand the charge?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Do you understand you could receive a maximum of ten years in the State Prison on each of those charges?
“THE.DEFENDANT: Yes, s'ir.
“THE COURT: Do you understand you are entitled to a jury trial and to have counsel represent you at that trial if you so desire?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: Has anybody promised you anything, or threatened you in any manner whatsoever to get you to plead guilty to these charges?
“THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
“THE COURT: And notwithstanding all of the things I just told you, do you still wish to plead guilty?
“THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.”
Based upon the above, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and SHANNON and LILES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. State, 202 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed upon authority of Ramsey v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 198 So. 2d 849 and McMahon v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 431. ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ., concur.…