EDWARD GILROY, 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 court held that the appellant's arguments regarding the invalid waiver of his right to counsel and jury trial, and the improper charge of larceny, were not supported by the record.
Appellant pleaded guilty to larceny of an automobile after waiving counsel and a jury trial. He was subsequently sentenced to two years in prison. He …
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 Intelligent Waiver cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant has timely filed this appeal from a final judgment and sentence from the court below.
Appellant was arraigned on a charge of larceny of an automobile. He entered a plea of guilty at a hearing on March 31, 1967. At this hearing he also waived the aid of counsel and a jury trial prior to entering his plea of guilty.
After a pre-sentence investigation, he was sentenced on May 12, 1967, to two years in the state prison. He waived the aid of counsel at this hearing.
In this appeal, appellant contends that he did not intelligently waive his right to counsel and his right to a jury trial. He contends that he pleaded guilty through misapprehension, ignorance, and coercion. He further contends that he should not have been charged with the crime of *824larceny of an automobile. He contends that he should have been charged with the unlawful use of an automobile because he never intended to permanently deprive the owner of the use of the automobile.
After a careful review of the record we can find nothing to support the various arguments propounded by the appellant. On the contrary, we do find strong evidence from the record to refute the arguments of appellant.
Since we are unable to find any error in the record and since the record comes to us on the presumption of correctness, we therefore affirm the judgment and sentence of the lower court.
Affirmed.
PIERCE and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bruton v. State, 220 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…the same general size as the appellant. The judgment of conviction arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. Crum v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 24; Nelson v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So. 2d 506; Gilroy v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 823. Our duty is to examine the record to see if there is sub [*670] stantial competent evidence to support the finding's of the trier of the facts. There being such in this record, we affirm. The Supreme Court of Florida has specifically held that posi…