JAMES RALPH PLYMALE, 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.
Plymale challenged his 1961 guilty pleas to robbery charges on grounds of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of relief, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate error and noting his unexplained delay in raising these claims.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of relief, holding that counsel was not incompetent based on the information available prior to the pleas and that the evidence did not support a finding that the guilty plea was coerced.
“It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error.”
Establishes the burden of proof on appeal that the appellant must show the trial court erred.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlymale was charged with five informations in 1961: three for robbery and two for assault with intent to commit felony murder. He pleaded guilty to th…
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 Incompetence Of Counsel cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a proceeding involving a petition filed pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix. Following the rendition of the opinion reported in Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 57, the appellant’s petition for relief came on for evidentiary hearing before the trial court, wherein the appellant [represented by counsel] was present and testified. From the record, it appears that the appellant was charged with five informations filed in 1961; three relating to robbery and the others relating to assault with intent to commit a felony [murder in the first degree].
In 1961, the appellant pleaded guilty to the robbery charges. In 1963, he was returned to the trial court and, upon a plea of guilty, sentenced on the remaining counts with the sentences to run concurrently with those imposed on the robbery charges. Thereafter in December of 1964, approximately four and one-half years after his first convictions and sentences and one and one-half years after his appearance before the trial court on the assault charges, he filed a petition for the first time in which he alleged he was coerced into making a false plea of guilty in the robbery charges in 1961 by alleged threats to his family and friends. Also, that his counsel was incompetent at the time of the 1961 adjudications. This court, upon prior opinion, held these grounds to state a prima facie case and ordered a hearing. After hearing appellant’s testimony, the trial court denied the relief sought. This order of denial is now before us for review. We affirm.
The action of the trial court arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. See: Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 714; Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So.2d 699. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate error. See: San Fratello v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 327; Brown v. State, Fla. App.1966, 192 So.2d 794. If the evidence in the record on appeal, viewed in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, supports the order he should be affirmed. See: Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 24; Hennessy v. State, Fla.App.1967, 198 So.2d 37.
Examining this record in light of these principles, it is apparent that under the circumstances the appellant’s counsel at the 1961 proceedings was not guilty of any incompetency upon the information furnished him prior to the pleas. See: McCray v. State, Fla.App.1966, 181 So.2d 729; Brown v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 191 So. 2d 612; State v. Barton, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 241. It does not appear, from the evidence, that the trial court was in error in determining that the appellant’s plea of guilty in 1961 was not coerced. See: Kent v. United States, 1st Cir. 1959, 272 F.2d 795; Cortez v. United States, 9th Cir. 1964, 337 F.2d 699; cf. Brown v. United States, 5th Cir. 1953, 204 F.2d 298. It is noted that the appellant had ample opportunity to present this alleged coercion plea in the trial court in 1963, when he appeared before the trial court on the assault charges, but declined to make any such allegations known at that time. Instead, the appellant went before the trial court and pleaded guilty to two charges of assault with intent to commit a felony [murder in the first degree], and received sentences to run concurrently with those already being served. No valid excuse for this silence is found in the record. The opportunity was then present for the appellant to voice his grievances in regard to *87the proceeding in 1961. He chose to remain silent. This standing, alone, may not be sufficient to deny his petition, but certainly this action should have a hearing on his credibility which was for the trial court to determine.
Therefore, finding no error in the order here under review, same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Maxwood Clarence Brumley v. State, 224 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…filing of the motion to vacate. This delay does not conclusively refute the allegations in the motion, but it may be considered by the trial court as relevant to the credibility of the appellant’s charges of coercion. Plymale v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 85. The state in its brief urges us to decide that the allegations in the motion with respect to coercion are insufficient because the Florida courts have held that a guilty plea is not to be held involuntary simply because the plea is entered on the…
-
Cash v. State, 207 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…5, 176 So. 2d 597; Whitney v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So. 2d 207; Bryant v. State, Fla.App.1967, 204 So. 2d 9. It is incumbent upon the appellant to make error appear. Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1967, 193 So. 2d 699; Plymale v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 85; Bryant v. State, supra. Unless there is no substantial evidence to support his conclusions, the trial judge will be affirmed. Swarthout v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 773; Carroll v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 834. The trial judge failed t…
-
Brown v. State, 211 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on authority of Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 316. See also, Hagan v. Laragione, Fla.1967, 205 So. 2d 289, 291. Cf. Plymale v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 201 So. 2d 85, 86.…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Crum v. State, 172 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Cortez v. United States, 337 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1964)
- State v. Barton, 194 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1967)
- Kent v. United States, 272 F.2d 795 (1st Cir. 1959)
- Fratello v. State, 154 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)
- Lum Coleman v. State, 193 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Brown v. State, 191 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Hennessy v. State, 198 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- McCRAY v. State, 181 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Brown v. United States, 204 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1953)