IRVIN LAPAUL BENNETT, 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 reversed the denial of a post-conviction relief motion, holding that the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his guilty plea was coerced by police, even though he was represented by counsel.
Yes, the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim of coercion, as his unrebutted claim warranted such a hearing.
“Appellant's unrebutted claim that he was coerced to plead guilty entitled him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion”
Establishes the core reason for reversing the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIrvin LaPaul Bennett pleaded guilty to grand larceny and conspiracy to utter a forged instrument. He later filed a motion for post-conviction relief, …
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 Coerced Guilty Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
Irvin LaPaul Bennett pleaded guilty to and was convicted of grand larceny and four counts of conspiracy to utter a forged instrument. He was at all times represented below by private counsel. He subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 1, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, alleging as the sole ground therefor that his plea of guilty was coerced by the police. His motion was denied without a hearing, and he appeals.
Appellant’s unrebutted claim that he was coerced to plead guilty entitled him to an evidentiary hearing on his motion, Williams v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 279, 280; Lee v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 95; Jones v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So.2d 191, 192, notwithstanding the fact that he was represented by private counsel at the time he entered his plea. Williams v. State, supra, 186 So.2d at 280; cf. Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1966, 186 So.2d 316, 317. Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s motion is reversed and the cause remanded for a hearing on his claim of coercion.
Reversed and remanded.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harlan Glen LAY v. State, 224 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…the state. Inconsistent with Rule 1.850, F.S.A. the trial court erred in not granting an evidentiary hearing on this motion. Estrella v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d489; Bush v. State, Fla.App.1968, 209 So. 2d 696; Bennett v State, Fla.App. 1967, 203 So. 2d 211. This cause is reversed and remanded for complete and prompt evidentiary hearing. WALDEN, C. J., and McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur.…
-
McCALL v. State, 224 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…ll refuted. Fact questions raised by petitioner on a Rule 1.850 motion or unrefuted claims of a coerced plea of guilty entitle petitioner to a hearing by the trial court. Jones v. State, Fla.App.1964, 165 So. 2d 191; Bennett v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So. 2d 211. McCall also claims that he is entitled to be appointed counsel on his Rule 1.850 motion. There is no absolute organic right to counsel in Rule 1.850 motions and only when complicated circumstances are present and potentially due process may be den…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 165 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- LEE v. State, 175 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Hamilton v. State, 186 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Williams v. State, 186 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)