CHARLES COWARD, JR., 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 reviewed an order denying a motion for post-conviction relief. The court affirmed the denial of most grounds but reversed and remanded for a hearing on the sole issue of whether the public defender refused to prosecute an appeal on the petitioner's behalf.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying relief on the ground that the public defender refused to prosecute an appeal. The court affirmed the denial of all other grounds for relief.
“petitioner's only meritorious ground for setting aside the judgment and sentence of the trial court is petitioner's allegation that the public defender refused to prosecute an appeal when the petitioner desired him to do so.”
Identifies the sole meritorious issue for 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 petitioner sought post-conviction relief, alleging multiple grounds for setting aside his judgment and sentence. One of the grounds asserted was t…
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 Right To Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from an order denying motion for post-conviction relief under Criminal Procedure Rule #1, F.S.A. Chapter 924 Appendix.
After a thorough reading of the briefs and the record on appeal it is concluded that petitioner’s only meritorious ground for setting aside the judgment and sentence of the trial court is petitioner’s allegation that the public defender refused to prosecute an appeal when the petitioner desired him to do so. All grounds of the appellant’s motion are denied except the ground that the public defender refused to prosecute an appeal on petitioner’s behalf. Almost identical situations have occurred in the cases of Hinton v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 522, and Jackson v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 166 So.2d 194, and the court reversed the cases for hearing on this specific issue only.
Therefore, inasmuch as the trial judge’s ruling on all the contentions raised by the appellant are affirmed, with the exception of his allegation that the public defender refused to appeal, we are reversing the case for a hearing on this sole contention.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SHANNON and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nelson v. State, 208 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…947), and other governing decisions. The scope of relief grantable under Section 2255 or in habeas corpus is not to be diminished by failure to appeal, but neither is it to be increased.” For holdings to the contrary, Coward v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 778, Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 194, Hinton v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 522. [*516] As stated in Informal Opinion No. 955 (July 29, 1967) of the Standing Committee on Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association on the ques…
-
Bell v. State, 222 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…f his contention that his court-appointed counsel refused to appeal his case, we are compelled to reverse for a hearing on this one contention. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith on authority of Coward v. State, 202 So. 2d 778 (Fla.App.2d, 1967). WIGGINTON, C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur. . Hinton v. State, 177 So. 2d 522 (Fla.App.2d 1965); Jackson v. State, 166 So. 2d 194 (Fla.App.3d, 1964).…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 166 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Hinton v. State, 177 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Edythe L. Stern v. Polzin, 179 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)