LESTER HAND, 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.
Lester Hand appealed a second motion to vacate his guilty plea conviction for second-degree murder, claiming coercion by police. The court affirmed the denial of his motion, finding that Hand failed to allege that his guilty plea itself was coerced and that his references to allegedly coerced confessions were irrelevant since no confessions were used at trial.
The court held that Hand's motion was insufficient because he failed to allege that his guilty plea was coerced and failed to contend that any allegedly coerced confessions were used against him. Hand could not properly raise the issue of coerced plea in the appellate court when he made no such allegation in his motion.
“plea 0f guilty should be freely voluntarilly (sic) made...It should be made by a compelant (sic) person who understand the consequences of such a plea and it should not be the result of a mistaken belief.”
Hand's citation to the legal principles governing voluntary guilty pleas, which he failed to apply to his own case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHand pleaded guilty on May 14, 1965, to second-degree murder in Collier County Circuit Court and was sentenced to twenty years. He filed his first mot…
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
This is an appeal from a second motion under Rule No. One, F.S.A. ch. 924 Appendix, filed by appellant Lester Hand, defendant in the Court below, to vacate a conviction and sentence in a criminal case.
Defendant Hand pleaded guilty on May 14, 1965, to an information filed against him in the Collier County Circuit Court charging second degree murder. Upon adjudication of guilt by the Court, Hand was sentenced to serve twenty years in the State Prison. Thereafter, on August 2, 1966, he filed a motion to vacate the sentence under Rule No. One, which was denied on August 5, 1966. On March 13, *3081967, he filed a second motion under Rule No. One to vacate the sentence, and on March 16, 1967, the Court denied that motion. From the latter order, Hand has appealed to this Court.
The second motion covered some “areas” embraced in the first motion and adds, some new “grounds” not previously advanced. In substance, the burden of Hand’s contentions in his second motion is that he “ * * * was coerced into entering the guilty plea by police officials without benefit of counsel * * * ”, quoting from his brief filed here. But the only allegation or “statement of fact” contained in his second motion to vacate is the following:
“ * * * plea 0f guilty should be freely voluntarilly (sic) made. Artegas [Artigas] vs. State of Florida, Sup.Ct.1939— [140 Fla. 671] 192 So. 795. It should be made by a compelant (sic) person who understand the consequences of such a plea and it should not be the result of a mistaken belief. Rubenstein vs. State of Florida, Supr.Ct. 1951—50 So.2d 708. Pope vs. State of Florida, Sup.Ct.1908, [56 Fla. 81] 47 So. 487.”
But Hand neglects to tie in the above “principles of law” with his own case. In his motion he does not contend that there was any coercion in his own plea of guilty. The only “coercion” he mentions in the motion was that his “confessions” were allegedly coerced. He makes no contention that any confessions, if made, were ever subsequently used against him to his prejudice. Without such averment, the motion was insufficient on that ground. Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 854.
And 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 motion. Adams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So.2d 369; Whitaker v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So.2d 125; Lee v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So.2d 443.
And, as usual, defendant refers to Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, and Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Those cases refer to inadmissibility of confessions in evidence at a subsequent trial where the accused had not been warned of his right to counsel. They do not apply to the instant case, however, because no confessions were ever used against defendant at any trial. He merely came into Court, and in the presence, and with the advice, of counsel, pleaded guilty.
The order appealed from is therefore—
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and ALLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford v. State, 210 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…cumstances, 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 motion”, citing Adams v. State, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 369;…
-
Bailey Lee Sloan v. State, 249 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hand v. State of Florida, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 307.…
-
Harvin v. State, 385 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…the crime was involuntary and that evidence against him was the product of an unlawful search and seizure; hence, these matters cannot be considered in a Rule 3.850 proceeding. E. g., Whitlow v. State, 256 So. 2d 48 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Hand v. State, 208 So. 2d 307 (Fla.2d DCA 1968). Since there was no allegation that the plea itself was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, or was otherwise subject to legal challenge, the motion was properly denied without evidentiary hearing. Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1964)
- Pope v. State, 56 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1908)
- Artigas v. State, 140 Fla. 671 (Fla. 1939)
- Rubenstein v. State, 50 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1951)
- Sandsbury LEE v. State, 165 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Major Realty Corp. v. Fla. State Tpk. Auth., 160 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Coleman v. State, 172 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Adams v. State, 179 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)