EDDIE WILLIAMS, 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.
Eddie Williams appealed the denial of his motion to vacate a conviction for armed robbery. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial, holding that all four grounds raised in Williams' post-conviction motion were either unavailable under Criminal Procedure Rule 1 or conclusively refuted by the court record.
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of the Rule 1 motion, holding that all four grounds for relief raised by Williams were either unavailable in a post-conviction proceeding under the Rule or conclusively refuted by the court files and records.
“The motion under Rule 1 filed in the lower Court set forth four general grounds for relief, each of which has been heretofore held by the appellate Courts of Florida to be either unavailable to a prisoner in a post-conviction proceeding under the Rule, or else conclusively refuted by the Court files and records.”
Establishes the court's framework for reviewing post-conviction motions under Criminal Procedure Rule 1
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEddie Williams was charged with armed robbery in Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record. After trial on March 25, 1965, represented by private c…
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 Rule 1 cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is an appeal from an order entered by the lower Court, denying without hearing a motion filed therein by appellant Eddie Williams under Criminal Procedure Rule 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix to vacate and set aside a judgment and sentence previously entered against him by said Court.
Eddie Williams was informed against in the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsbor-ough County for the offense of armed robbery, and upon a trial of said issue, the defendant being represented by his own private counsel, was on March 25, 1965 found guilty by the jury of the offense as charged and was thereupon adjudged guilty and sentenced by the Court to serve twenty years in the State Prison.
Thereafter, on January 12, 1967, said defendant filed a motion pursuant to C.P.R. No. 1 to vacate and set aside the aforesaid judgment and sentence. The motion thereupon came on to be heard before the Court and on January 26, 1967 was denied, defendant being represented by the Public Defender’s office. The order of denial recited that the Court had “reviewed the file and record” in the case, and that defendant had been represented at arraignment by the office of the Public Defender, and by an attorney of his own choosing “at all subsequent stages of the proceedings before this (trial) Court, including jury trial and the filing of a motion for new trial, which motion was denied”. It is this order under C. P.R. No. 1 which is now being here reviewed. We affirm.
*822The motion under Rule 1 filed in the lower Court set forth four general grounds for relief, each of which has been heretofore held by the appellate Courts of Florida to be either unavailable to a prisoner in a post-conviction proceeding under the Rule, or else conclusively refuted by the Court files and records. These grounds will be severally stated, followed by appellate decisions thereon adverse to the defendant.
(a) Upon arrrest, defendant was held eight days in jail before he could make a phone call to his mother. Authority contra: Marti v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 506; Henderson v. State, Fla.1965, 174 So.2d 73; Smith v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 585.
(b) At the trial, defendant's guilt was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. Authority contra: Austin v. State, Fla. App.1964, 160 So.2d 730; Taylor v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 402; Wilcox v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 427; Johnson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 23; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 336; Farrington v. State, Fla. 1966, 183 So.2d 681.
(c) Defendant was not represented by counsel at his preliminary hearing. Authority contra: Sam v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 258; DiBona v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So.2d 192; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 28.
(d) The “Transcript of record of said trial” shows that the State’s witnesses testified falsely. Authority contra: Austin v. State, supra; Harris v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So.2d 312: Brown v. State, Fla.App. 1965, 177 So.2d 518; Byers v. State, Fla. App.1964, 163 So.2d 57; Gammage v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 529.
The order appealed from is therefore
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. State, 246 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…ently waived. See 9 Fla. Jur. Criminal Law § 78. Prior to Coleman, it was held that preliminary hearings in Florida were not a “critical stage” in a criminal proceeding. Cf. Baugus v. State, Fla.1962, 141 So. 2d 264; Williams v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So. 2d 821; Rash v. State, Fla.App.1964, 162 So. 2d 311; and DiBona v. State, Fla.App.1960, 121 So. 2d 192. But see Montgomery v. State, supra. Assuming arguendo that this is fundamental error, does Coleman command reversal in this appeal? We think not for tw…
Authorities Cited (17 total)
- Austin v. State, 160 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Guido DI Bona v. State, 121 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Marti v. State, 163 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Erwin v. Erwin, 167 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Bruce Hinson Gammage and Larry v. Gysin, 162 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Byers v. State, 163 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Ellis Taylor, Jr. v. State, 171 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Harris v. State, 167 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Henderson v. State, 174 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- McCLENDON v. State, 164 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)