JOHN D. RANKIN, 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.
John D. Rankin, convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 20 years, filed a third motion to vacate his conviction alleging his appointed counsel failed to appeal despite his request. The court affirmed the denial of his motion, holding that absent allegations of trial error, a mere claim of frustration in taking an appeal does not warrant post-conviction relief.
The court held that a defendant cannot obtain post-conviction relief based solely on frustration in taking an appeal without alleging any error or irregularity in the trial itself. The defendant is not automatically entitled to a new trial or appeal merely because his counsel failed to appeal.
“We reject the contention that one who has been frustrated in taking an appeal is entitled to a new trial without any consideration being given to whether or not there was an error in his trial.”
Establishes the core holding that frustration in appealing does not entitle defendant to post-conviction relief without showing trial error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRankin was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to 20 years hard labor. An attorney was appointed by the trial court to represent him. He filed th…
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 Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant-defendant was convicted on an Information charging him with armed robbery. An attorney was appointed by the Judge of the Criminal Court of Record to represent the defendant. The defendant was sentenced to 20 years at hard labor in the State Penitentiary.
On September 23, 1964, the defendant filed a motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence, which motion was denied by the trial court.
On February 21, 1966, the defendant filed his second motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence. The defendant was represented by the office of the Public Defender of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit.
On July 22, 1966, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s second motion to vacate, which was affirmed by this court.
On June 18, 1967, the defendant filed another motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence. The Public Defender represented the defendant at the hearing.
On June 26, 1967, the trial court entered an order denying defendant’s motion to vacate and set aside judgment and sentence.
On July 10, 1967, the defendant filed his notice of appeal which is now the appeal under review by this court.
An examination of the third motion that was filed by the defendant, and the subject of this appeal, reveals appellant’s only complaint is that the court appointed counsel did not appeal his conviction. He alleges he requested counsel to file a notice of appeal but was advised by counsel that the court did not provide funds with which to enter an appeal, and that while he felt that the case merited an appeal, he would need money to do so.
The appellant argues that he should have been afforded a hearing by the trial court on this allegation.
There was no indication in the motion filed of any error in the proceedings below, nor was it shown that movant was not able financially to prosecute his own appeal.
In Murray v. State, Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 292, 293, the Third District Court of Appeal, in a very similar situation, said:
“We reject the contention that one who has been frustrated in taking an appeal is entitled to a new trial without any consideration being given to whether or not there was an error in his trial. We also reject the contention that one who has been frustrated in taking an appeal from his conviction is entitled to an appeal as a consequence of a Rule I peti*269tion which does not allege any error or irregularity in the trial.”
Finding no error, we affirm the lower court.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ.