WILLIE JOHNSON, A/K/A BARNEY GIBBS, 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.
This case reviews the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no error in the denial of the petition.
No, the trial court did not err in summarily denying the petition for post-conviction relief.
“That the Movant was represented by Counsel of his own choosing in this cause.”
This quote establishes a key fact considered by the lower court in denying the petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant, Willie Johnson, was charged with armed robbery, represented by counsel, and found guilty by a jury. He subsequently filed a petition fo…
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 Motion For New Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
An information was filed against the appellant, charging him with armed robbery. The appellant was represented by counsel of his own choosing, pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial. Following trial and a verdict of guilty, he was duly adjudged guilty and sentenced. He filed a Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1, F. S.A. ch. 924 Appendix petition, which was summarily denied and which order is now under review. In part, said order reads as follows:
“That the Movant was represented by Counsel of his own choosing in this cause.
“That the remaining allegations contained in the motion do not constitute legal grounds for granting a New Trial or release of the prisoner.”
Following an examination of the record on appeal and the briefs, we find no error in the order here under review and same is hereby affirmed. See: State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892; Coyner v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 715; Ziegler v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 477; Hall v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 277.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salazar v. Santos (Harry) & Co., Inc., 537 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ad Kessler been following at a safe distance the second accident would not have occurred. This evidence was sufficient to present a jury question on the issue of negligence. See Lee v. Dunnigan, 384 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Rivenbark v. Johns, 205 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968); § 316.0895 Fla.Stat. (1987). As to the issue of legal causation, the jury had before it evidence that either impact could have caused death and that the death was in fact caused by both impacts. In a case such as this where the…
-
Rivenbark v. Johns, 211 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Weeks, 166 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1964)
- Coyner v. State, 177 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Ziegler v. State, 180 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Hall v. State, 183 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)