ROY YATES, 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.
A defendant seeking to vacate prior concurrent sentences must also challenge the validity of any longer, concurrently running sentence.
Appellant sought to vacate two 1963 convictions, but was serving a longer 30-year sentence concurrently with those he challenged. The trial court deni…
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
Appellant Roy Yates by this appeal seeks review of an order denying his motion to set aside and vacate two 1963 convictions, one imposing a two year sentence and the other a five year sentence, the two to run consecutively. The trial court disposed of the instant motion without granting appellant a hearing. Appellee State of Florida insists that relief by reason of Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix is not available to appellant because he is presently serving a 30 year sentence which runs concurrently with the two sentences questioned in the instant proceeding and appellant has in no instance challenged the validity of said 30 year sentence.
The record before us discloses that appellant has shown sufficient grounds warranting a hearing in the instant cases if we were only concerned with same. Since Appellant has failed to challenge the validity of the 30 year sentence which runs concurrently with those sentences now questioned, he would not be entitled to release even if he prevailed in his motion.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed on authority of Johnson v. State, 184 So.2d 161 (Fla.1966), and Paul v. State, 165 So.2d 779 (Fla.App.3d, 1964).
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973)…we do not enjoy.” Jones v. Hoffman, 272 So. 2d 529, p. 534. The other District Courts of Appeal have recognized the relationship between their authority and that of this Court. Griffin v. State, 202 So. 2d 602 (Fla.App.1st, 1967); Roberts v. State, 199 So. 2d 340 (Fla.App.2d, 1967); and United States v. State, 179 So. 2d 890 (Fla.App.3d, 1965). To allow a District Court of Appeal to overrule controlling precedent of this Court would be to create chaos and uncertainty "in the judicial forum, particularly at t…
-
Seay v. State, 286 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1973)…to which he may be subjected upon such a plea of nolo contendere. Full explanation and comprehension on the part of Defendant Silva is reflected in this record. See Peel v. State, 150 So. 2d 281 (Fla.App. 2d 1963) and discussion in Roberts v. State, 199 So. 2d 340 (Fla.App.2d 1967). We are cognizant of our earlier Smith v. State, 197 So. 2d 497 (Fla.1967), holding that a plea of nolo contendere cannot be accepted in a capital case. Smith was, of course, based upon then Fla.Stat. § 912.01, F.S.A. which provide…
-
Wilkin Leroy Gibson v. State, 213 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…ences ; yet by his motion he seeks to vacate only one of them. Since he has failed to challenge the validity of the other concurrent sentences, he is not entitled to a hearing on the validity of the challenged sentence. Yates v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 340; Cole v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 923. Affirmed. McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. on the relation of the Borden Co. v. Langley, 184 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1966)
- Paul v. State, 165 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)