SAM HENRY HOUSE, 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.
Sam Henry House appeals the summary denial of his Rule 1 motion for collateral relief from his criminal conviction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding House's four grounds for relief legally insufficient.
The court held that none of House's four grounds were legally sufficient to entitle him to relief. Bare allegations without factual support are insufficient; jury composition claims must be raised timely at trial, not collaterally; and prosecutorial remarks and suppressed testimony claims are proper subjects for direct appeal, not initial Rule 1 proceedings.
“Such bare allegation as made in the motion was not sufficient to require that the trial court hold a hearing to consider all of the evidence adduced at the trial.”
Establishes the standard that collateral motions must contain factual basis, not mere conclusions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHouse was convicted of a crime and filed a Rule 1 motion seeking to vacate his sentence on four grounds: (1) the State knowingly used perjured testimo…
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 Direct Appeal Vs. Collateral Attack cases and more on FLexlaw
Sam Henry House appeals from an order which summarily denied his motion filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A., ch. 924 Appendix. This collateral attack on the judgment of conviction of House lists four grounds which he feels *135entitles him to relief under Rule 1 proceedings. We agree with the trial judge that House’s motion contained no meritorious grounds for granting a vacation of his sentence.
The first ground raised by House was that at his trial the State knowingly used the perjured testimony of five State witnesses. The motion set forth no factual basis in support of such general conclusion on the part of the pleader. Such bare allegation as made in the motion was not sufficient to require that the trial court hold a hearing to consider all of the evidence adduced at the trial. See Buchanan v. State, 184 So.2d 225 (Fla.App.3d, 1966); Gammage v. State, 162 So.2d 529 (Fla.App.3d, 1964); Austin v. State, 160 So.2d 730 (Fla.App.2d, 1964).
Next, House argued that his constitutional rights were violated because members of the Negro race were arbitrarily and systematically excluded from the jury panel. An objection of this nature should be timely made in the trial court. We have previously ruled that this question cannot be raised for the first time in a collateral attack proceeding as appellant attempts to do in the case at bar. Lee v. State, 173 So.2d 520 (Fla.App. 1st, 1965); Mann v. Wainwright, 191 So.2d 867 (Fla.App. 1st, 1966).
The next grounds urged by appellant concerned an alleged prejudicial remark made by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument and the possibility that the State suppressed the testimony of a state trooper. These matters, we feel, are proper subjects for review by direct appeal from judgment and conviction and not initially by a Rule 1 motion. It is the bare conclusion of appellant that a particular remark by the prosecuting attorney caused the minds of the jurors to be inflamed and prejudiced. Appellant concludes that evidence was suppressed because a proffer of the testimony of the state trooper was made while the jury was excused. This testimony could have been ruled inadmissible for a number of reasons. Merely because the testimony of the state trooper did not get before the jury is not a sufficient basis to support the theory that testimony was suppressed.
Since the grounds presented in the motion were legally insufficient to entitle appellant to the relief sought, the trial judge properly denied the motion. We hereby affirm the order appealed.
WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foxworth v. State, 231 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…eration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Bevels et al. v. State, 156 Fla. 159, 23 So. 2d 156 (Fla.1945); Sardinia v. State, 168 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1964), and House v. State, 199 So. 2d 134 (Fla.App.1967). JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
-
Holmes v. State, 239 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…eedings in this cause, same having been filed in Case No. 1-198. The allegations pertaining to evidentiary matters were properly resolved in the trial of the cause by the jury and have no relevancy in this post-conviction proceeding. House v. State, 199 So. 2d 134 (Fla.App.1st 1967). Appellant’s claim that counsel did not competently assist him is a bald allegation without any showing of facts to substantiate same and does not entitle appellant to an evidentiary hearing. State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla.…
-
Carter v. State, 292 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…er of the trial court denying appellant’s motion to vacate judgment and sentence is affirmed. See Peterson v. State, Fla.App., 237 So. 2d 223; Potts v. State, Fla.App., 242 So. 2d 729; State v. Barton, Fla., 194 So. 2d 241; House v. State, Fla.App., 199 So. 2d 134. SPECTOR, Acting C. J., and McCORD and BOYER, JJ., concur.…
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
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Bruce Hinson Gammage and Larry v. Gysin, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- LEE v. State, 173 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Buchanan v. State, 184 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Mann v. Louie L. Wainwright, 191 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)