RICHARD HYDER, 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.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of a motion for post-conviction relief, finding that the appellant's claim of not being offered counsel at his guilty plea was demonstrably false based on the record.
No, the record conclusively shows that the appellant was offered and furnished the assistance of counsel at the time of his guilty plea.
“An examination of the files and records before us conclusively shows that the second ground for relief is false.”
Establishes the court's finding that the appellant's primary claim for relief was factually incorrect.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging indigence and that he was not offered or furnished counsel at the time of his guilty…
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.
Appellant’s motion in the trial court for relief pursuant to Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., w.as based upon the grounds that (1) he was indigent, and (2) he was not offered or furnished the assistance of counsel at the time of his guilty plea. An examination of the files and records before us conclusively shows that the second ground for relief is false. We therefore affirm this appeal from the order denying relief.
We note also that this appeal is subject to dismissal pursuant to the rule set forth in Frappied v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So.2d 502, that relief under Criminal Rule One (now Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure) would not be available to an appellant not in custody under sentence of the lower court. But since that point was not presented in the State’s brief, we do not act upon it.
Affirmed.