MATTHEW WEEKS, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, holding that the defendant's guilty pleas were not improperly induced or involuntary. The court found the defendant's arguments regarding counsel and prior confessions to be without merit.
No, the defendant's guilty pleas were not improperly induced or involuntary. The grounds presented for relief were without merit.
“On this appeal by the defendant below from an order denying his second motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix from convictions and sentences on two informations charging him with robbery, to which he pleaded guilty, we have considered the several grounds on which it is contended on behalf of the appellant that his guilty pleas were improperly induced and were involuntary, and find them to be without merit.”
This quote summarizes the case's procedural posture and the core issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant pleaded guilty to two informations charging robbery and was subsequently convicted and sentenced. He filed a second motion for relief un…
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 Voluntariness Of Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
On this appeal by the defendant below from an order denying his second motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix from convictions and sentences on two informations charging him with robbery, to which he pleaded guilty, we have considered the several grounds on which it is contended on behalf of the appellant that his guilty pleas were improperly induced and were involuntary, and find them to be without merit.
The allegations in the motion relating to lack of counsel or improper representation by counsel and as to promises which his private counsel made to him as to the result to be expected from a guilty plea, were submitted in a prior motion for relief under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. See Weeks v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 587. Appellant’s contention that his guilty pleas were involuntary because he had previously confessed does not furnish a basis for relief under the present motion. See Taylor v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 169 So.2d 861; Thompson v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 176 So.2d 564, 567; Clayton v. State, Fla. App.1966, 188 So.2d 395; Brown v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 405.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nova v. State, 439 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…was not made the subject of a prior 3.850 motion is no basis for denying relief. Whitney v. State, 184 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966), and cases collected therein; Lawson v. State, 231 So. 2d 205; Richardson v. State, 202 So. 2d 137; Weeks v. State, 201 So. 2d 764; Hall v. State, 183 So. 2d 277. No matter how many prior applications for collateral relief a prisoner has made, the prisoner is entitled to consideration of his application if it presents a different ground for relief. Sanders v. United States, 373…1 / 2
-
Reuel Lawson v. State, 231 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1970)…mary denial of a mo [*208] tion to vacate under Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, is authorized where the same allegation has been raised and rejected in prior motions. Echols v. State, 210 So. 2d 13 (Fla.App.2d 1968); Weeks v. State, 201 So. 2d 764 (Fla.App.3d 1967); Taylor v. State, 183 So. 2d 865 (Fla.App.3d 1966). However, in the case sub judice, the previous denials were authorized under the reasoning in Fretwell v. Wainwright, supra, and McNally v. Hill, supra. The Court could not enterta…
-
Ford v. State, 210 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…omicide which the State Attorney had agreed to. .Under such circumstances, the existence of such confession or confessions is not sufficient reason to relief under Rule 1. Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 854; Weeks v. State, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 764. And, as stated in Hand v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 307, released March 20, 1968, “ * * * he cannot properly be heard in this Court to complain that his plea of guilty in the trial Court was coerced, because he makes no such allegation in his…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bridges v. State, 169 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Thompson v. State, 176 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Weeks v. State, 168 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Bennett v. The Home Indem. Co., 188 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Carvin Clayton v. State, 188 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Brown v. State, 190 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)